HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/05/1997 AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING'OF
THE CITY COUNCILS OF
_ SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
(HOSTED BY ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH AND PISMO BEACH)
***SOCIAL HOUR- 6.00 P.M.***
THURSDAY,JUNE 5, 1997AT 7.00 P.M.
CLIFF'S HOTEL, 2 75 7 SHELL BEACH ROAD
PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
* * *
SPECIAL MEETING PROTOCOL
• Pimm Beach Mayor John Brown will chair the meeting
• The business meeting will begin promptly at 7:00 p.m.;and adjourn no later than 11:00 p.m.
• Public Comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker with a total of 15 minutes.
• Due to the large number of City Councihrembers in attendance, Mayors and Councilmembe s arm respectfully requested to limit their
ooam mu and/or questiaosto two minutes. V,,&Mayor or Councibnember wishes to be recopned by the pair.he or she may indicate so by
raising their hand.
• Staff presentations will be limited to ten minutes
• Motions will need to be ratified by each Council. Mayor Broom will recognize each of the respective Mayors,who in turn will put the item
to a vote ot7mTher Council. In order to facilitate this process,discussion by individual Councilmembers should be limited to a minimum due
to the large number of elected officials presem,
1. CALL.TO ORDER-Mayor John Brown, Pismo Beach
2. INVOCATION-Pastor Ehrhardt Lang-First United Methodist Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALL.EGTANCE
4. ROLL CALL:
City QMagyo Grande City ofAtaseadero Q&of Grover Beach
MayorA.K "Pete"Dougall MayorRayJohnson Mayor Robert Reed
Michael Lady Harold L Carden III Dee Santos
Michael Fuller George Luna- HenryE "Gene"Gates
Thomas A.Runels Jerry L Clay,Sr.. Peter Keith
Steve Tolley Kenneth Lerno Ronald Arnoldsen
a&of Mo_ rro Bav Gifu of Paso Robles Q&ofPfsmo Beach
Mayor Cathy Novak Mayor Duane J.Picanco Mayor John Brown
RodgerAnderson Tom Baron Martan Mellow
Dave Elliott Walter J.Macklin Hal Halldin
William Peirce Lee Swanson Bill Rabenaldt
Janice Peters Christian E.Iversen MaryAnn Reiss
Q&QLSan Luis Obispo
Mayor Allen K Settle
Bill Roalman
Dave Romero
Dodie Williams_
Kathy Smith
AGENDA
JOINT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIES'MEETING
• JUNE 5,1997-6:00 P.M.,
PAGE20F3
5. WELCOME-Mayor John Brown, Pismo Beach
Introduction of invited guests:Congressman Walter Capps,Senator Jack O'Connell, Assemblyman Tom
Bordonaro,Jr.,County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors
6. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
This is the time at which members of the public may address the Joint City Councils. When recognized,
please come to the podium and state your name and city of residence. Comments are to be limited to 2
minutes. A total ofIS minutes is provided for public comment
7. ACTION ITEMS:
7-A LEGISLATION REGARDING G CITY REVENUE NEEDS AND
RESTORATION OF REVENUES TAKEN BY THE STATE -Presentation
by Mayor Allen,Settle, San Luis Obispo
ACTION.•Approve letter to State legislators and the Governor to be signed by the mayors of all
seven cities.
TIME:30 Minutes
7-B URBAN RESERVE LINE-Presentation by Mayor Allen Settle, San Luis
Obispo
ACTION: Establish a subcommittee of City and County representatives to explore the possibility of
a formal agreement with the County to restrict unincorporated urban development
adjacent to but outside of established urban reserve lines.
TIME:•30 Minutes
7-C PG&E ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION OF DIABLO CANYON-Mayor
Cathy Novak of Morro Bay will introduce County Administrator Robert Hendrix
who will make the presentation.
Impact on cities,county and school districts ofPG&E's accelerated depreciation offliablo
Carryon.
ACTION.•Approve letter to Public Utilities Commission with copies to Governor and Legislators
TIME:30 Minutes
AGENDA
JOINT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIES'MEETING
• JUNE 5,1997-6:00 P.M.,
PAGE 3 OF 3
7-D COUNTY WIDE SALES TAX-Mayor Bob Reed of Grover Beach will
introduce City Manager John Bahorski who will make the presentation.
County wide sales tax to be used for streets and highways.
ACTION: 1)Agree to explore placing a%t cent sales tax measure on the November 1998 ballot;2)
Form a working group of Mayors and City Managers to meet and determine the
feasibility of proposing a%s sales tax measure;3)Invite the County and SLOCOG-
representatives to participate in the working group to explore the feasibility of a ballot
measure.
TIME:30 Minutes
8. INFORMATION ITEMS
8-A PUBLIC-EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT(PEG)ACCESS ON CABLE TV-
Mayor Cathy Novak of Morro Bay will introduce the presenter(s).
Report
TIME:20 Minutes
8-B E.V.C.-ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION-Mayor Cathy Novak of
Morro Bay will introduce Dr. Susan Cotler, Chair of the EVC Board of Directors,
who will make the presentation.
Report on CDBG funds and rievolving loans.
TIME.20 Minutes
8-C AB 939 WASTE DIVERSION GOALS -Mayor John Brown of Pismo Beach
will introduce Mr. William Worrell,Manager of Integrated Waste Management
Authority(IWMA)who will make the presentation.
Report on progress toward attainment ofAB 939 waste diversion goals.
TIME:20 MPnuta
• 9. ADJOURNMENT.
JTV
AAAY 7 1997
i .t , iF -
C..c fir
Date: May 12; 1997 ,
To: Mayors and Council Members of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County
From: John Dunn,City Administrative Office9:;,>'
City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: League of California Cities Efforts to Increase Fiscal Stability/Reform of Local
Government Finance in California
Recommendation: That the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis-Obispo County endorse the
suggested action steps and adopt the attached resolution.
As recent League Bulletins have documented, President Ron Bates and the Board of Directors of
the League of California Cities have started up this year with a bang. Recognizing the deteriorating
financial condition of many California cities, there has been a new sense of urgency and more
focused leadership, and the creation of a League Task Force,to the end that a comprehensive fiscal
reform/stabilization program be created for cities. The emphasis has been on achievement and
success.
While dozens of ideas and concepts have been examined,the League has recently concluded that"it
is clear that a finance package has to be formed around the central concept of returning property
taxes to local governments"and that"cities have to unite in this concept.
So, while there are still many ideas and legislative bills-on this general topic floating around, by
now the main concentration is on:
AB 95 (Sweeney)and SB880(Crowe)would return property.tax revenues to local agencies
who lost a share of their property taxes in 1992-94.
ACA 4(Aquiar)would place before the voters the issue of returning the local government
property tax shined away from the cities, counties and special districts in 1992-94
(necessitated by the assumption that the Governor would veto the above two bills, as he did
last year)
' 7A
s�
• So, all things considered, what are the best things to do to ensure the State legislature gives real
consideration of the financial needs of cities:
1. Stay in close contact with Senator Jack O'Connell and Assemblyman Tom Bordonaro and
let them know of your city's needs and fiscal situation, and what city needs aren't being
attended to due to your financial situation. A specific description of your special needs and
situation is more effective than a generalized statement about needing more money.
2. Write letters to the authors of desired legislation and to the Senate and Assembly committee
members considering them, thanking them for their work.on behalf of cities. Again, cite
specifics of what can't be done in the present situation or what could be done if the former
property tax levels were restored.
3. While the Governor vetoed the return of property tax revenues last year, he and his office
need to be kept"in the loop"and letters and supporting materials should also be sent to him.
Keep the pressure on. -
• 4. Read the League Bulletin carefully and do what is suggested so that we'll all do the best job
of increasing the revenues available to cities.
5. Have a meeting with your newspaper editor to gain editorial support for local government
revenue needs and to restore the property taxes previously taken away.
6. While it is most effective for each city to do what is suggested.above, there is also value to
collective action, and it is recommended that the seven cities of San Luis Obispo-County,
and the County, adopt the attached resolution which will be forwarded on to State
legislators, the authors of principal pieces of legislation in this area, the League of
California Cities and to California State Association of Counties(CSAC).
The first attachment is the "Goals and Ingredients for City Government Finance Improvement"
produced by the League's Task Force on Tax Stabilization/Reform which is more of a long-term
effort, to augment the shorter term effort focusing primarily on the return of property taxes taken
from local government in 1992-94.
07Am2,
• RESOLUTION OF THE SEVEN CITY COUNCILS IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
CONCERNING THE RESTORATION OF PROPERTY
TAXES TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA_
FROM 1992 THROUGH 1994
WHEREAS,the property tax has been the principal support for local government finance
in California since the creation of the State of California in 1850; and
WHEREAS,the State of California, under the home rule concept, has historically left the
property tax to California local governments to accomplish their responsibilities; and
WHEREAS,the severe State recession of 1991 to 1994, and the shortage of State
revenues,caused the State to solve their own financial problems by taking away property tax and.
other revenues from the cities and counties of California; and
WHEREAS,these actions,combined with the recession itself,caused severe financial
hardship among the cities and counties of California; and
WHEREAS,on November of 1996,Proposition 218 was approved by the voters of the
• State of California which severely restricts the ability of local governments in California to raise
necessary revenues; and
WHEREAS,most cities and counties do not have the revenue necessary to continue
current operations, fund an adequate capital facility budget,properly maintain streets and utility
infrastructure, and set-aside an adequate reserve level for emergencies and contingencies.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Councils of the seven cities of the
County and by the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County that restoring of previously
lost property tax will assist the local governments of California in meeting their public service
obligations to their citizens.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the local governments in the State of California are
the level of government closest to the people and,therefore,most attuned to their needs;and that
creating jobs through local economic development efforts is necessary both for the communities
of California as well as to the State itself.
THEREFORE,BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the cities and County of San Luis
• Obispo County urge our legislators and the Governor of the State of California to restore
previously-taken-away property tax revenues.to the local governments of California. .
L
ism
INEMS
INEMOL
IN■oMIL
League of CaT'Fornia Cities, 1400 K Street,Sacramento,CA 95814
phone:916/658-8200 fax 916-658-8240
Task Force on Tax Stabilization/Reform
April 4, 1997
Goals and Ingredients
-for City Government Finance Improvement
In January 1995, the League-of California Cities published a discussion paper entitled
"Making California's Governments Work." The report was the product of the League's
Committee on Local Government Reform and followed on the heals of several other
urgent calls for the reform of California state and local government. The League's report
noted "there appears to be some unanimity of opinion among well informed observers
that something must be done if public agencies in California are to serve their respective
• publics in anywhere near an effective.manner."
The opportunity for action is here. The Task Force on Tax Stabilization/Reform
recommends the following goals and ingredients to improve California city government - -
finance.
GOALS
Protect to stabilize local-government revenues and help ensure reliable
service delivery.to city,residents;
Reform to improve the equity and efficiency of state and local
government finance; and -_
Restore to prevent the continuing erosion city and county finances and
the important services they fund.
TASK FORCE ON STABILIZ4 TION/REFORM
GOALS&INGREDIENTS FOR CITY FINANCE IMPROYEMENT
• April 4, 1997
INGREDIENTS -
❑ Constitutionally prohibit any other level of government from tampering with
city revenues.
❑ Enact Guardino Protection. Protect local governments from financial loss that
resulted from changing judicial interpretations of Proposition 62.
❑ Make Mandate Reimbursement Meaningful. Article XIILB of the California
Constitution requires the State to reimburse local agencies when the State mandates a
new program or a higher level of services. Meaningful provisions must be made by
the State to reimburse mandates without resort to "poison pills" and other clever and
creative dodges to avoid the provisions of the Constitution. -
❑ Strengthen Home Rule Authority. Establish a rebuttable presumption in favor of
home rule authority for charter cities, and,require challengers to make findings that
the local action constitutes local interference with State administration of programs,
has significant extraterritorial effects, or is a state policy interest requiring statewide
• uniformity. The courts have_been inconsistent in applying standards for resolving
conflicts over what constitutes a municipal affair versus a matter of statewide
concern.
❑ Remove barriers to the reorganization of local agencies which promote greater
efficiencies in the delivery of services.
❑ Authorize locally enacted increases of special taxes with theapproval
. Y P of a
majority of voters voting in an election, thereby eliminating the distinction between
general and special taxes. Under current law, if local officials pledge the specific use
of a.proposed tax increase, a 67% voter approval is needed. This has created the
undemocratic situation.where one voter can thwart the of two of his neighbors.
❑ Authorize majority voter approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds.
Under current law, local governments, including cities, counties and school districts,
must receive a'67% voter approval to.issue general obligation bonds for critically
needed facility improvements.
❑ Authorize countywide 1/2¢ sales tax increase for locally-determined purpose.
The tax increase would require: 1) approval of ballot measure and revenue allocation
by city councils of cities representing a majority of the population in the county and
• the county board of supervisors; 2) voter approval pursuant to constitutional
provisions. All counties have at least V20 available under the 8.75% sales tax limit
(limit is higher in San Francisco and San Mateo). .
417197 MC 2
lko 9
TASK FORCE ON STABILIZATION/REFORM
GOALS&INGREDIENTS FOR CITY FINANCE IMPROVEMENT
April 4, 1997
r
❑ Extend the sales tax to catalogue, TV and internet sales, leveling the economic
playing field for California business and enhancing revenues. The loss of California
sales tax revenues to these marketing sectors has been conservatively estimated at
$200,000 - and growing. Federal legislation is needed.
❑ Extend sales tax to services by gradually increasing the number of services included
in the sales and use tax base. The total sales-and use tax rate could be gradually
lowered,making this revenue neutral initially.
❑ Return moving vehicle fines to cities. The reduction in revenue return has reduced
the incentive for city and county law enforcement to enforce vehicle code violations.
Following the reduction in the proportion of fine revenue going to the citing agency,
moving vehicle citations dropped 24%.`°Returning the distribution of fine revenue to
pre-1991 amounts would result in an increase in moving vehicle citations,and thereby
increase revenues to cities,counties and the State.
❑ Return property tax revenues taken via ERAF to cities and counties. The State
has shifted$3.6 billion of local property tax revenues from cities,counties and special
• districts,to fund a portion of its obligations to schools. Greater access to property tax
revenues will improve incentives for sound land use decisions.
O Allocations'to local agencies to be made in proportion to net loss (ERAF and
Proposition 172).
❑ Allocate 1 cent of the State share of sales tax to cities and counties. The State has
routinely raided city and county finances in order to balance its own budget. Cities
and counties should now share in the State's improving fiscal condition. .
4/7/97 MC07A
3
,: ^c^s,�'�e;�� c.E�i _f�3 �i�'�Fa'�s';•Ti'tY s.,;C::�. •.. �`+s'�s��}� %}i ' 1
NUNN
#15-1997
April 25, 1997
TO: California City Officials
FROM: Ron Bates,President,Mayor Pro Tem,Los Alamitos
RE: League Board Adogts Fiscal Policy Asking the Legislature and the Governor to Restore.
Rgform acid Protect Local Government Finances
At the recent meeting of the League Board of Directors held in Huntington Beach, California,the
Board adopted a policy to more precisely direct League efforts on the issues of local government
fiscal reform. This update to League policy was necessary to address the growing number of
issues and the changes that.have taken place in the Legislature, with-the-_Administration and
through statewide ballot measures directed at local government finance issues.
Previously, League PP the Lea a Board appointed a Task Force on Fiscal Stabilization/Reform. The
membership of the task force consisted of representatives from the Board of Directors and other
interested city officials from different geographic areas of the state and with a representative
sample of large and small cities. The taskforce was given the charge to develop a direction for
the:League in dealing with the short term issues of local government finance, the longer-term
directions for city governments and the stabilization of local government finance in order to
weather future economic downturns. The Board adopted the recommendations of the taskforce
which were to seek changes to the local government finance structure in California that Protect,
Reform and Restore city revenue bases. The specifics of this policy adopted by the Board are
as follows: =
* Constitutional Protection. Constitutionally prohibit any other level of government from
tampering with city revenues.
* Guardino Protection. Enact legislation to protect local governments from financial loss
that resulted from changing judicial interpretations of Proposition 62.
* Mandate Reimbursement. The current constitutional prohibitions against the state
mandates does not provide the protection needed to stop mandates without proper
reimbursement.The current constitutional"protections"need to be strengthened.
* Strengthen Home Rule Authority. Through the courts, ballot measures and state
legislative action, local home rule authority through the adoption of a local charter has
League of California Cities 7A0*"I
1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 916.658.8200 fax 916.658.8240 http//www.cacities.org
been eroded to. the point where there is little advantage for a community to consider a
charter.A constitutional presumption in favor of home rule authority should be adopted.
* Removing Barriers to Efficiencies. Any barriers to the reorganization of local agencies
should be removed in order to ensure a more efficient delivery of services.
* Majority Vote on Special Taxes. Under current constitutional provisions, one voter can
cancel out the votes of two other voters when casting a ballot on "special taxes". This is
contrary to the one person - one vote principle. The majority vote standard established in
Proposition 218 should be applied to special taxes.
* General Obligation Bonds. The majority vote principle in Proposition 218 should also
be established for local general obligation bonds. It will assist in building infrastructure to
make California competitive. It makes local government general obligation bonds
consistent with the majority vote for state general obligation bonds.
* Jointly Authorized Countywide 1/2 Cent Sales Tax. Utilize existing authority for 1/2
cent countywide sales tax with approval of a majority of cities representing a majority of
population and a majority of county board. of.supervisors. Majority voter approval
required-for imposition of tax. One-half of revenues go to jurisdictions in county based--on
population. Remaining half of revenues go to jurisdictions based on formula negotiated
by jurisdictions.
Sales Tax Equity. Extend sales tax to catalogue sales leveling the economic playing field
for California businesses. Federal authorization is required.
* Sales Taxes and Emerging Economy. Apply sales tax to transactions in service based
businesses while reducing overall sales tax rate. This captures changing trends in
California economy and establishes a more equitable base for sales tax imposition.
* Fines to Enforce_ State Motor Vehicle Laws. Return the revenues from moving _
violations taken from local government in the early 1990's to help.fund trial courts. This
transaction returns the incentive to enforce traffic laws passed by*the Legislature and
signed by the Governor.
* Return Local Government Property Tax. Shift the$3.6 billion in property taxes taken
by the state in 1992-93 and 1993-94 back to cities,counties and special districts.
* - Shift State Sales Tax to Local Government. In recognition of the state's improved
financial condition and the revenue shifts away from local government to the state to
assist the state's financial condition during the early 1990's, shift up to 1 cent of the
state's sales tax to cities and counties.
The policy adopted by the Board provides a direction on immediate local government finance •
issues in the Legislature and targets longer-term goals for the League to address. It provides the
#15 2 4/25/97
• basis to reestablish the ability and strength of local governments to respond to its citizens by
offering critical local services, including'public safety services. It would provide for a stable
financial base and offers the opportunity to reestablish the credibility of local government with
its citizens. It is the hope of the League Board of Directors, that LeagueDivisions and other
gatherings of city officials can agendize these issues for discussion and provide feedback to the
Board. -
Thanks to the League Task Force on Stabilization/Reform for their long and dedicated work on
this issue and thanks to the League members who voiced support for the Board's efforts. It has
taken more time than we wanted, but any process worth the effort will take careful deliberation.
Thanks again.
**************** **LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES********************
1 Community Care F ilities: Group Homes-AB 323 (Baca), Support.
Smoking and Tobac Control. Bars and Bar Areas-AB 869(Floyd),Oppose.
Booking Fees - (Knight), Support.
w'Lam' Booking Fees-AB 211 aca), Support.
5 Local Agencies: Prope Tax Exchange-X466(Rainey),Support.
1 -
State Mandated Local C sts-AB 972(Torlakson),Oppose.
i
Regulatory Takings. Res urants. Hours of Operation SB 689(Johnson), Oppose.
8 Local Agency Contracts: igibility-SB 994(Johnson),Oppose.
9 Design Professionals Indem ification-AB 1070(Campbell),Oppose:
Impoundment,Vehicles- (Mountjoy),Oppose.
11 Solid Waste Franchises. Inde nification-SB 11Z9'(Polanco),Oppose.
Hazardous Materials. Ce ed Unified Program Agencies - SB 659 (Sher),
reo Sponsor/Support.
13 Parks and Recreation. Fin erprinting. Fees - AB 1223 (Strom-Martin),
Sponsor/Support.
4. School Facilities- SB 1227(O'Co ell),Neutral.
A
—
7. 9
#15 3- 4/25/97
INISTRATIVE TIVITIES •
15. Welfare Reform. Leagu Board Adopts Policy Guidelines -Information.
ISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Community Care Facilities: roup Homes.
[AB 323 (Baca)-Support]
Baca Group Homes Bill Clears 'rst Hurdle--More Support Letters Needed!!!
Pending in Assembly Appropriati ns Committee
Assembly Member Joe Baca's AB 323 was approved by the Assembly Human Services
Committee on Tuesday, April 22. Assem ly Member Baca's AB 323 will allow city police
departments to provide information to the partment of Social Services about existing crime
problems associated with the proposed loca 'on of the group home or, other group homes.
operated by the proposed licensee. The.bill been amended to allow__the Department to
consider this information in making a licensin determination rather than requiring denial if
asked by the local agency.
Assembly Member Baca resisted Committee Chair "on Aroner's efforts to stall the bill and hold� •
a hearing after the legislative year. Assembly Me er Baca argued forcefully that there has
already been studies of this issue and bills held has- fo years without resolution and that it was-
time to begin empowering local communities to deal 'th group home problems.- Cities have
long complained about the lack of consideration of 1 al conditions in siting group homes.-
AB 323 addresses some of these important issues.
Opponents argue that any local efforts to regulate oup homes, including existing
overconcentration standards, violate the Federal Fair Housing endments Act. However, they-
have
heyhave never successfully challenged California's standards. it most compelling argument ii
that group homes are homes for protected classes such as.chil n and the disabled and that no
one should attempt to regulate how you or a member of the prot ted class live. This argument
completely ignores the facts that these group homes are businesse :eking a profit for someone
and should be regulated to protect the interests of the busine clients and surrounding
community. AB 323 recognizes this and requires examination of the usiness owners past record'
of managing other group homes.
The lobbying effort on AB 323 was serious. The hour was late. A mbly members were
attending multiple hearings. For a while -it looked as though AB 323 ould be killed. The
League's lobbyist worked to provide the necessary votes as did Assembly ember Baca's staff'
However, the most effective lobbyist on the bill was Assembly Member Jo -l�aca himself. He
made several trips between,committee rooms encouraging Assembly Human S ices Committee
#15 4 4/25/97 7A10
1
•
X.
- t:10
:ir
20
#14-1997
April 18, 1997
ERAF Bilis Move Out of Committees with Full Bipartisan Support; SB 1316 (Johnson) Held in
the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee; League Continues to Seek Full Restoration of$3.6
billion in Property Taxes Shifted to the State.
The Senate Local GovernmentCommittee unanimously passed SB 880 on April 16, with no opposition
present and complete bipartisan support. The California Teachers' Association was listed in
opposition, but did not appear at the meeting. This legislation is one of several proposals that attempts
to return to local government the property taxes shifted to the state in 1992-93 and 1993-94. 'SB180
does the following:
• 1. ERAF Can. In 1997-98, the bill prohibits a county auditor from allocating property tax
revenues to ERAF in amounts that exceed the fund's 1996-97 allocations. SB 880 requires an
auditor to allocate any amounts not allocated to ERAF to local agencies in proportion to the
agency's original property tax shift.
2. Baseline ERAF Reduction. The legislation requires a county auditor to'allocate only the
percentages specified of a local agency's property tax shift amount to ERAF. This amounts to
a 10 percent annual reduction in the ERAF contribution - thus providing 10 percent annual
allocations,back to local agencies.
3. "Excess" ERAF. Beginning in 1996-97, SB 880 requires a county auditor to allocate any
"excess" ERAF revenues pursuant to a written agreement between the county board of
supervisors and the county superintendent of schools. Local agencies receive their skare of the
"excess" ERAF revenues based on their proportion of the original tax shift. The.bill also
prohibits"excess"ERAF funds from offsetting state aid for special education programs-
The Senate Local Government Committee passed this legislation in the morning. In the Afternoon, the
Assembly Local Government Committee unanimously passed ACA 4, legislation introduced by
Assembly Member Fred Aguiar that`places before the `voters the issue of returning the local
government property tax shifted away from cities,'counties and special districts in 1992-93 and 1993-
94. This bill has full bipartisan support and is jointly authored by Assembly Member Aguiar(R-Chino
• Hills)and Assembly Member Sweeney(D-Hayward).
7A• I
League of California Cities
1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 '916.658.8200 fax 916.658.8240 http:%/www.cacities.org
In the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, Senator Johnson had his SB 1310 heard by that policy
committee. This legislation would have shifted up to one cent of the state's sales tax revenue to cities
and counties based on population, approximately$3.5 billion. The full amount would-be shifted over a
period of five years. Each community would have to receive approval from the voters to institute the
shift. -
League President Ron Bates testified in support of the measure as a vehicle to address the problems of
local government finance. He was joined by the Mayor of Covina, Tom O'Leary, who also urged the
committee to pass the legislation.
The bill was opposed by the California Teachers' Association, the California State Association of
Counties, and the California Taxpayers' Association. Several committee members expressed their
serious concerns about SB 1310, while still supporting some alternative effort to address local
government finance problems. The Department of Finance also testified that they were opposed to the
legislation. This means that even if the bill was passed by the Legislature, it faces a likely veto in the
Governor's office.
Given the lack of sufficient support to pass the legislation,the author requested that the bill be held by
the committee without a vote in order that the concept in the legislation could be addressed as
discussions over a local government finance package progress throughout the session. The bill itself
remains in the possession of the committee and will likely not be heard before the legislative deadlines.
Procedurally, this turns the measure into a"two-year" bill that can be taken up'by the committee next
session.
•
With each step in the legislative_ process, the local government finance picture is taking on greater
(form. It is clear that a. finance package has to be formed around the central concept of returning
property taxes to local government. This does not preclude other subproposais or proposals to address
unique circumstances. It simply means that a consensus is forming or has formed around a property
tax package that will likely be a central piece of any proposal. Now that we have emerged from Round
one of the discussions over a finance package for local government, cities need to unite on the
concept of a property tax proposal while. continuing to seriously entertain any
modifications/amendments to make that happen. The message is simple - CITIES HAVE TO
STAY TOGETHER!
It is also clear that until the Administration is seriously engaged in the discussion,the success of A local
government finance package is 'unlikely. The package has to be shaped in such a wa)6that the
Administration can demonstrate a consistent policy on local government finance- and can have
reasonable expectations on the financial impacts of any such package on the general fund of the State.
This is the challenge.
In the meantime, the League continues to hold with the position that it seeks full restoration of the
property tax lost in 1992-93 and 1993-94. That figure is$3.6 billion!
7
#14. 2 4/18/97
s . Vi
�Z '- .irl •ova«,.�' { 3'y
't� fl -s9• F � t 7 .P !.._ L<)(_t - {•, 3•'�:. . "1 •s._
4.
..�;�Y;3iWi��i1 aY1nI.�.�_ i�:�ci• •.�ar�.. -`�i� 1,. r
#13-1997
April 11, 1997
Property Tax Shift/ERAF Legislation Moves with Bipartisan Support in the Assembly;
01 Senate ERAF Legislation in Senate Local Government.Committee on April 16, 1997 -
SB 880 (Craven); Bill to Shift Sales Tax to Cities .and Counties, SB 1310 (Johnson) to be
Heard in Senate Revenue and Taxation on April 16, 19917.
As communicated in -a FAX message to all cities ,last week, the Senate Local Government
unanimously passed AB 95, a measure to return the property taxes to local government that were
shifted to the state in 1992-93 and 1993-94. Among the encouraging events at the meeting was
the complete bipartisan nature of the Committee's action._Shortly._before the hearing, the two
primary leaders on this issue, Assembly Member Mike Sweeney (D-Hayward), Chair of the
Assembly Local Government Committee and Assembly Member Fred Aguair (R-Chino Hills)
• agreed to put out a bipartisan package from the Committee.
,T6-ZcCbq,iplish this, Assembly Member Aguiar joined on to Assembly Member Sweeney's.
AB 95 as principle co-author. In addition,the agreeme ve ommitment for Assembly _
Mem Sweeney to join on Assembly Member A ar's A�A.4 as a rinciple co-author when
at legislation is moved at a later date. As you will ast descriptions, ACA 4 by
Assembly Member Aguiar takes the approach of returning property taxes to local government
and securing the return through a constitutional amendment. This bipartisan agreement sets the
correct approach to the local government finance issue in the Legislature. City officials should
encourage Assembly Members and Senators from their areas to hold fast on this bipartisan
approach.
While the Assembly vehicles have been launched,the Senate will have its first round of hearings .
on major local government finance issues on 97. In the morning of that date, the
Senate Local Government Committee will h SBJM a I authored by Senator Bill Craven. It...
is a Senate vehicle that returns'property taxes a State to local governments. It is simila
in structure to the Sweeney and Aguiar bills. .
n the afte on ofApril 16, 1997, the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee will hear.
SB 1310, a 11 with Senator Ross Johnson as the author. This proposal shifts.up to 1 cent of the
state's.s tax to cities and counties over a five year period of time. The shift to any one
• community has to be first approved by the voters of the local community.
J
7A IS
League of California Cities
1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 916.658.8200 fax 916.658.8240 http://www.cacities.org
Please contact the members of those respective committees and deliver the message that.the
Legislature has to address the problems of local government finance this year. It is time to return •
the revenue take by the state in the early 1990's.
*******************LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES********************
O1. Return o Property Taxes,Local Agencies - SB 880(Craven),Support.
Sales Tag ift to Local Agencies- SB 1310(Johnson), Support.
Certificates Participation. Vote Requirement- SB 147(Ayala), Oppose.
Fuel Taxes: In ation-AB 653 (Papan),Support. -
Public Employe Mediation and.Factfinding,-AB 673 (Floyd), Oppose.
• Alcohol Beverages ales to Minors: Local Enforcement Grants - AB 783 (Brown),
Support.
7. Public Contracts- (Baca), Oppose.
01CL
Off-Sale Beer and Wine icenses- S •
AB 849weene Su(Sweeney),Support.
Alcoholic Beverages: Com unity Alcohol Enforcement Fund AB 900 (Cardenas),
Support. .'
10. Alcoholic Beverages: Minors. enalties-AB 1002 (Thompson),Support.
11. Alcoholic Beverages: Sale to Min -AB 1177(Caldera),Support.
12 Alcoholic Beverages: Licenses- (Hughes), Support.
3 Alcoholic-Beverages.. Retail License- (Karnette),Support.
4. Temporary Restraining Orders and Inju ctions-AB 1274(Goldsmith),Support.
15. State Gambling Commission-AB 28 (Tho son and Ortiz),Oppose.
16 Public Contracts-SB 479(Alpert),Oppose.
17. Retention. Local Limitation-AB 940(Miller), pose.
18 Public Works: Contracts-SB 874(Calderon),Op se.
#13 24/11/97
i
'�%S' �3'�: 1 4 y ,►°r_?�l SSR �^�',T. ^ ,t ti�.n'?n'wr•C �
Y�_-�1 -x:. �. -t 3*•a'7 7' a-i "�_ ♦�+ "fw�• �- 'i' �"„+a,� t.r:y.�•*- }:`
H. s x:
- .,sem _ .-�► 7 .
OWN
#11-1997
March 27, 1997
URGENT! -URGENT! - URGENT!
_League of California Cities Executive Committee Announces Support for a Package of
Local Government Finance Measures; Legislation Scheduled for Early-to-Mid April
Hearings; Committee on Revenue and Taxation Reviews and Debates Work by Consensus
Project, Allies for Cities, Counties and Special Districts, and Department of FinancelLocal
Government Representatives Meeting.
FINANCE LEGISLATION
Following a lengthy discussion of the League of California Cities Policy Committee on Revenue
and Taxation, occurring at a special two-day meeting, the League of California Cities Executive
Committee voted to support a number of different local government finance proposals that
promise to be the focus of attention this legislative session. The positions of the Executive
Committee follow the recommendations of the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Although
the full Board of Directors will take up the recommendations from the Committee on Revenue
and Taxation at its April 18-19, 1997 meeting, the Executive Committee wanted to ensure that
the League was on record in support of all the key legislative proposals which are scheduled for
early-to-mid April hearings, prior'to the meeting of the Board. The positions of the Executive
Committee are subject to review by the full Board.
Discussions on local government finance reform are the focus of activity for a number of interest
groups in Sacramento.A general outline of some of the more important discussions is contained
later in this Bulletin. The discussions are important because they will undoubtedly shape any
final package that's developed. Because these discussions with other interest groups,the business
community and the Governor's office are still on-going, the action of the Executive Committee
was directed at allowing'the greatest amount of flexibility for the discussions to be completed.
This also allows all parties to pursue broader-based revenue reform measures rather than a
narrow,"quick-fix"proposal.
It also allows the League, along,with other organizations, to take a hard look at the annual May
revision of revenue estimates that is published by the Department of Finance. This serves as the
basis for assembling the final state budget product. The release of the May figures is important
6 League of California Cities 7Aw '
1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 916.658.8200 fax 916.658.8240
because it will set realistic parameters for discussion or define the "art of the possible"for a local
government finance reform package. •
City officials are vigorously encouraged to send letters and contact the members of the
appropriate committees prior to the hearing dates listed- ASKING FOR SUPPORT OF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE LEGISLATION LISTED BELOW. Please
communicate the needs and positive impacts of these proposals on your city services, but more
importantly, city officials must communicate that 1997 has to be the year to reform and correct
the problems with local government finance. City services were reduced to assist the state
general fund during the recession. The recession is over. It is time to make the difficult choices
and set local government finances and services straight
The local government finance legislation supported by the Executive Committee includes the
following proposals:
* AB 1 (Aguiar) ERAF Can and Reverse the Shift, Hearing: April 2 1997 Assemhly
Local Government Committee,This bill has two principal features:
1. It caps the property tax shift at the dollar amount shifted in 1996-97, thereby allowing
local government to keep any future growth in property taxes.
2. It reduces the amount shifted each year by a schedule of unspecified percentages until
the shift reaches zero.
This proposal would result in the return of the amount of property tax originally shifted
away from local government to the benefit of the state general fund, approximately $3.6
billion. This amount of property tax revenue would be a direct state general fund impact.
Currently this measure contains an urgency clause, requiring a 2/3 affirmative vote in
both houses of the Legislature.The urgency clause could be removed making the measure
a majority vote bill. The signature of the Governor is required to make this proposal law.
* AC�4 (Affuiarl Constitutional E A Ii'
Can and Reverse tl.e Shift, Hearing: No
Hearin¢ Date Set-- Constitutional Measure Not Subject t0 R=lar Legislative
Dead This measure is similar in concept to AB 1- but would place the ERAF cap
and reverse shift in the state constitution. This measure requires a 2/3 vote of the
Legislature and subsequent approval of measure by the voters on a statewide ballot. It
does not require the Governor's signature to go on the ballot.
*
AR 95 (Sweeney) Reversing the Shift and Other Considerations, Hearing: April 2.
1997 - Assembly Local Government ommitt p .This measure has two principal
features: i
7 X
#11 2
3/26/97
• 1. It reduces the amount shifted by a schedule of unspecified percentages until the shift
reaches zero.
2. It requires the reduction in the amount of the shift to have no impact on K-12 schools
and community colleges.
While not amended into the legislation at this date, Assembly Member Sweeney is
considering other features including: 1) a cap on the property tax shift, allowing the
future growth in property taxes to go to local government,and 2)provide state income tax
revenues to local governments as a means to encourage job development and job-housing
balance by local governments.
The bill is currently an urgency measure requiring- a 2/3 affirmative vote by the
Legislature and the Governor's signature to become"law. The urgency clause could be
removed if necessary making the proposal a majority vote measure.
* SB 880 (Craven). ERAF. -Cap and Reverse the Shift. Hearing: April 16. 1997 -
Senate Local Government Committee. This bill takes essentially the same approach as
AB-1•
* SB 889 (Hayden). ERAF Reversing-the Shift, Hearing: No Hearing Date Set. This
measure takes essentially the same approach as AB 95. There is no indication that the
• other considerations being discussed around AB 95 are part of the plan for SB 889.
* SB 1310 (Johnson). Sales Tax Shift to Local Government. Hearing-, April 16. 1997 -
Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. This measure allows cities and counties,
individually, to place a sales tax. measure before their local voters by a 2/3 vote of the
governing body. If approved by the voters, state sales taxes would be shifted over a five
year period to the city or county approving the measure. The overall sales tax rate would
remain the same. The new revenues from the sales tax shift would be distributed to the
communities approving the shift on a per capita basis. The measure leaves the current
Bradley-Burns sales tax law in place.A total of 1 cent of the state's sales tax would be set
aside for this community-by-community approved revenue. The total exposure of the
state general fund, if all.communities approved this measure, would be approximately
$3.5 billion when fully implemented over the five year phase-in period. The exact impact
on the state general fund would depend on the number of communities approving the
transfer.
This measure requires a-majority vote in the Legislature for passage as well as the
Governor's"signature.
7A 17
#11 3 . 3/26/97
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE REFORM-DISCUSSIONS
There are definitely encouraging signs that the local government finance issue is rising on the
Legislature's agenda, but more importantly on the agendas of other influential interest groups.
The signs are good because it means that Local Governments are not alone or isolated in this
effort. It is going to take this support to be successful in the Legislature. The "groups" or
deliberations to watch in this debate over local government finance include the following:
The Consensus Project. The "Consensus Project" is a group of over 30 Sacramento-based
interest organizations attempting to address the dysfunctional nature of the state and local
government finance in this state. It is a group that grew out of the work of the Constitution
Revision Commission and:contains representatives from many of the groups which actively
participated in the Commission deliberations.Sacramento Bee, Contributing Editor,Peter Schrag
noted inn-a recent article about the Consensus Project that:
. . . given the inability of the Constitution Revision Commission and other such bodies to
generate any motion toward reform, [the Consensus Project] may be a forlorn hope. But it
surely represents far and away the most promising reform effort on the horizon - indeed,
the only game in town.
Mr. Schrag goes on to observe:
The state's tax and governance system, many [in the Consensus Project] will tell you •
privately, discourages new development as well as long-term investment in health, safety
and education; unfairly taxes new business and residences; creates mounting stress
between agencies and levels of government, and alienates a public that "feels powerless
to influence government through its representative institutions."
The final recommendations of'the Project have.not been finalized, however, the group has
listed a range of state and local government finance options for consideration. There will be an
attempt to bring the recommendations.to a close within the next few months. The more serious
options being discussed include a reexamination of the voter approval requirements for general
obligation bonds and other taxes; strengthening home rule protections against state efforts to shift
local revenues to Sacramento; a realignment of revenues and responsibilities between the state
and local government with the intent to create greater accountability.
Lo a] Governmen /D nartment of Finance Dis , cion In addition to the Consensus Project
efforts, discussions are taking place on a regular basis between representatives of local
government (cities and counties) and representatives from the Department of Finance to explore
options for strengthening local government finance. These discussions are simply that:
"discussions"; and, do not yet have a stamp of approval from the "corner office" but are
nonetheless important and recognizes that the Governor's office is a critical step to success. The
discussions are examining a number of alternatives and include some of the same revenue
options being discussed by the Consensus..Project; exploring new and existing countywide •
authority for local revenue options that can be directed at the countywide priorities of local
#1 l 4 3/26/97
7AIS
governments in the county; and exploration of revenue options that are consistent with the
direction of the state's economy and business activity.
Allies for Cities. Counties and Special Districts. As mentioned in previous Legislative
Bulletins,a strong coalition of business interests continues to push each week with Legislators on
the issue of returning the property tax shift of the early 1990's to local government. The coalition
has met with strong support for the resolution of local government finance issues within the
Legislature. The alliance will continue throughout the session.
CONCLUSION
The local government finance question is definitely on the radar screen in Sacramento. It will
take an extraordinary effort on the part of city officials to keep it on the screen. That effort started
before the legislative session convened for its regular business in January, but goes into full gear
- NOW! A clear, distinct and consistent message is needed between now and the end of the
session: 1997 is the year to restore local government finance to a stable and responsible level.
********************LEGISLA ACTIVITIES********************
Local Agency Borrowing (Ayala), Oppose.
2. Prop. 172 Sales Tax Allocati n; Repeal of AB 1191 - A4 (Takasugi), AB 334
(Wildman),Support. -
�Jln4
School Facilities- SB 1227 'Connell), Oppose.
` Public Safety Officers. In rrogation SB 546(Johannessen), Oppose.
Multi-Family Rental Hoing - SB 1156(Costa),Oppose.
Dept. of Forestry and ire Protection:. Fire Prevention and Control, Staffing
��yu/►'��' AB 319(Machado),Op se.
7 Local Government Fin nce: Date of Application-AR 1362 (Mazzoni),Support.
8 Public Employees. M diation and the Factfinding Panel-AB 673 (Floyd), Oppose.
Skateboarding. Mun' ipal Liability-AB 1296(Morrow),Support.,
10. Public Beach Enhanc ent-AB 1229 (Ducheny),R 1122(Craven),Information.
•
� 9
#11 5 3/2'6/97
JULL R`STRATIVE A03VITTES
11. Meyers Group Presents w Housing Forecast-Information.
12.
Welfare
Congress, Send C11CA of Support. .
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. Local Agency Borr ing.
[SB 147(Ayala)-O pose]
Measure Fails Passai e in Senate Local Government Committee.
With a strong show of res raint, the Senate Local Government Committee did not approve
SB 147 regarding local issu mce of Certificates of Participation. The measure was vehemently
opposed by local govele
roups including the education community, cities and municipal
- treasurers. SB 147 reo votes (author and co-author), while the remaining committee
members abstained. received reconsideration and is technically still alive for this
session, however, the dicated he has no interest in pursuing this measure further. The •
League will keep you any new developments occur. Thanks to the hundreds of city
officials who sent lettephone calls and helped stop this measure in its first committee.
Great effort, better resup the good work!!! (Referred to previously in Bulletins#6-1997,
7-1997, and 8-1997.) [ taff: David Jones]
2. Prop. 172 Sales Tax All cation; Repeal of AB 1191.
[AB 339(Takasugi), (Wildman)-Support]
Hearing: Wednesday,Ap 2,Assembly Local Government Committee
AB 339 (Takasugi), will essentially epeal AB 1191 (Takasugi)of last year. AB 1191,sponsored
by the League, sought to address an interpretation of the allocations of Prop. 172 funds
distributed by counties to cities. 'ue to a technical drafting error, AB 1191 resulted in
significant reductions of revenues alto ted to cities. AB 1191 results in an unintended windfall
for counties at the.direct expense of ci 'es which was clearly not the intent of the author or the
sponsor. AB 339 seeks to retroactively AB 1191 by removing the original language added
by the measure and establishing an effect a date for AB 339 of January 1, 1997. Counties who
have withheld allocations or given cities duced allocations would readjust their distribution
formulas to make cities"whole"for the curre ear under AB 339. •
7 A ."AO
#11 6 3/26/97 -
'
• .„t •fY•r V- Z p•.� 1 S�`•Fr._ Y £•4 '��,yf+17F' .@fi •+ •
r
:f �,7..tz r -.4 ..•j ^{' �z�, '.`t,f �a.• S'�ain�[mss^`s. ts' it9 ,�.� -l. .r�_.
ins
M
#10-1997
March 14, 1997
Legislative Analyst Perspectives and Issues Report Raises Interesting Issues on Property
Tax Shift; Bill Introductiort Deadline-Produces an Array of Local. Government Finance
Legislation; Proposition 218 Implementation Legislation Introduced.
PERSPECTIVES AND ISSUES
Each year the Legislative Analyst Office issues its Perspectives and Issues(P&I) report on the
state budget. This yew,the-P&I report examinectthe property tax shift issue and explored options
for the Legislature when considering the return to-local governments of all or a portion of the
money shifted in the early 1994's. The report makes some interesting observations for city
officials as we enter the debate over the return of these property tax revenues or any other
• method of recognizing that local government needs some help.
The report starts with background pointing out that the shift of property tax in 1992-93 and 1993-
94 from cities, counties and special districts permanently redirected- about 17 percent of
California property taxes to the schools through something called the Education Revenue
Augmentation Fund (ERAF). VAWo thio schools-were-the:direct recipients of the property tax,
school programs did not benefit from the shift, because the state reduced its financial payments
to the schools in an amount equal-to the property tax shift. The ultimate beneficiy of this
transaction is the state general fund�.
While.this shift of property tax relieved fiscal pressures on the state'it had two direct impacts on
local government:
1. It caused cities, counties and special districts to reduce a wide variety of
programs.
2. It strained the fiscal conditions of many local governments.
The report goes on to say that while data summarizing the exact impact is not available, the
services hit-the hardest have been park and recreation programs, library services, and programs
for the indigent(including general assistance
•
In.addition, the report points out that the shifts have also had detrimental effects on economic
development and property tax administration efforts. The report concludes:
League of California Cities 7AsOA )
1400 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 916.658.8200 fax 916.658.8240 http://www.cacities.org
1. Cities and counties have less of an incentive to promote new business and .
residential land developments in their communities.
2. The property tax shift has reduced incentives to counties to manage the property
tax collection system in a manner that ensures all property owners pay their fair share.
This is because counties now receive 20 cents of every dollar of property tax, yet pay
more than 70 percent of the cost of property tax administration.
The Legislative Analyst goes on to suggest that any proposal to modify the property tax shifts of
the early 1990's poses two difficult choices for the Legislature. Specifically, in order to provide
any significant local relief,the Legislature would need to:
1.- Reduce state program expenditures or increase state revenues.
2. Choose which local governments would receive the property taxes.
The Legislative Analyst recommends points out to options two return the property tax to local
governments. The first is a"freeze shift" that places a cap on local property tax shift amounts.
The second approach is a "baseline reduction" whereby the property tax shift is reduced by a
fixed amount. -
Freeze Shift. Under the freeze shift approach, local governments would begin to receive
about $130 million in 1997-98. This figure would grow to an amount exceeding $1 .
billion by 2002-03. Under this proposal, the communities with the greatest property tax
growth would benefit the most: Also, the local governments with the largest ERAF
obligations would benefit.
Baseline Reduction. Under this approach to returning properly taxes to local
government, the "base" amount of local government property tax shift obligations are
reduced by a fixed amount or percentage. Local government property tax shift obligations
would continue to grow under this approach, however, the shin obligations would grow
from a lower base. Under this approach, a$130 million baseline reduction grows to$170
million in fiscal-rel' in six years. This $170 million is compared to the $1 billion figure
in the Freeze Shift approach after six years. The communities benefiting the most under a
Baseline Reduction proposal could be entirely decided by the Legislature.
The Legislative Analyst makes two conclusions:
1. The Freeze Approach only makes sense on a permanent basis and is more
unpredictable as to its ultimate impact on the state general fund.
2. The Baseline Reduction poses the least threat to the state general fund and gives
the Legislature the opportunity to make further adjustments in future years,depending on
the state's financial situation. ,
#10 2 3/14/97 m
• In the P&I, the Legislative Analyst also'explores the differences between and among local
government jurisdictions in the amount of property tax they receive. The analysis is used as a
perspective on the issues of the Legislature attempting to "equalize" the disparities in the state
due to Proposition 13 and the subsequent legislation to distribute property taxes among local
governments. For those with an interest in this question, we highly recommend this section for
your evening reading.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
February 28, 1997 was the deadline date for introducing legislation for the 1998 session. After
having reviewed close to 3,000 proposals, we now have a snapshot of the local government scene
for 1997. The most prominent bills on local government finance are summarized below:
PropeM Tax
A%A(Aguia ): ERAF. Capping and Reversing the Shift. This bill has two principal
features:
1. It caps-the property tax shift at the dollar amount shifted in 1996-97, thereby
allowing local government to keep any future-growth in property taxes
• 2. It reduces the amount shifted each year by a schedule of unspecified percentages
until the shift reaches zero.
ACA 4(Aggisrl:ERAF. Capping and Reversing the Shift. Similar to AB 1,, except that
the measure is a proposed constitutional amendment. It does not require a signature from
the Governor. It does require a 2/3 vote by the Legislature. It does require the voters to
approve it on a statewide ballot.
AB 95(Sweene3tk ERAF,etc.Reversing the Shift.This bill has two principal features:
1. It reduces the amount shifted by a schedule of unspecified percentages until the
shift reaches zero.
2. It requires that the reduction in the amount of the shift is to have no impact on K
through 12 schools and community colleges.
In addition, Assembly Member Sweeney is examining an approach in the bill that will 1)
establish a dollar cap on the property tax shift, thereby allowing the f iture'growth in
property taxes to go to local government, and 2) provide state income tax revenues to
local governments as a means to encourage job development and job-housing balance by
local governments.
7A 23
#10 3 3/14/97
SB 880(Craven) ERAF CaPpin.cr and Reversing the Shift, This bill has two principal •
features:
1. It caps the dollar amount of the property tax shift at the amount shifted in 1996-
97, thereby allowing local government to keep any growth in property taxes.
2. It reduces the amount shifted by a schedule of unspecified percentages until the
shift reaches zero.
SB 889(Hayden), ERAF_ Reversing the Shift Two principal features in this bill
include:
1. It reduces the amount shifted by a schedule of unspecified percentages until the
shift reaches zero.
2. It requires that the reduction in the amount of the shift is to have no impact on K
through 14 schools.
AB 661(13rewer). Minimum Properly Tax Allocation Under this bill, county
government would be allocated a minimum of 23 percent of property taxes collected
within the county for 1997-98. The 23 percent figure would increase or decrease in
uniform steps to the year 2002-03 to a fixednot a minimum •
( ) percentage that is also
unspecified in the bill. Thereafter, the county percentage remains at that percentage. This
legislation appears to be an attempt at"equalizing"the property taxes between/among the
counties.
AB 393(Richter). ERAF Pro Tax to Frontier" Counties_
R.�}' Counties._ The bill specifies
that, in 1997-98 and thereafter, a county government specified as a"frontier"county shall
not contribute to the property tax shift-to schools - ERAF. This applies only to the
designated"frontier"county and not the cities or special districts in the county.
AB 864(3:homson)_ ERAF Yolo County, This bill specifies that for: 1997-98 and
thereafter, the amount of property taxes shifted*from the County of Yolo to the county
ERAF fund shall not exceed 40 percent of the'property taxes collected in the county and
shall not exceed 10 percent of the county's revenues,regardless of the source.
AB 1069_( ardoza) AF Reversing the Sjlift or Neptive Sum CounfliL This bill
reduces the ERAF shift each year for the "negative sum counties"by the amouni of the
"take-away" computed for 1994-95. It is not entirely clear how this measures would
work.
SB 303(Burton).-ERAF. Special Education This bili limits the ERAF contribution to
special education by"basic aid"counties to the 1995 and 1998 fiscal years. •
• 14
#10 4 3/14/97
� III
• SB 854(0 Connell). ERAF, Transit Districts. This excludes single-county transit
districts from ERAF. The bill would appropriate $569,000 from the General Fund to the
-Department of Finance for allocation to K-14 schools.
SB 1294(Leslie), ERAF. Alternative Trgnsfer - Qualified Counties. Under current
law, the ERAF shift is decreased where counties make increased allocations to certain
educational entities. A county is "qualified" for this decrease if the county adopted this
alternative distribution system for the first time in 1994-95. This bill allows any county to
become a"qualified"county.
Other Local Government Finance Options
SB 1310(johnson). Sales Tax Shift to Local Government. This bill allows cities and
counties to place a sales tax measure before their local voters by a 2/3 vote of the
governing body. If approved by the voters, a one percent local sales tax would be phased
in over five years. The imposition of the local sales tax would reduced the state-imposed
sales tax by the same amount, thereby leaving unchanged the sales. tax paid by the
consumer. -
AR righak Local Government Efficiency and Cost Reductipn Bond Act. This
bill would place a$100 million bond act before the voters.Bond proceeds would be used
to provide loans to cities, counties,and special districts for projects that reduce the cost of
government or improve the effectiveness of government services.
ACA 10(Runner), Local Sales Tax Sharing. Agreements. This constitutional
amendment has two parts:
1. Under the state constitution, the Legislature may authorize cities, cities and
counties and counties to share sales taxes. This proposed amendment would authorize all
cities and counties to enter into sales tax sharing agreements.
2. Under the state constitution, before a sales tax sharing agreement becomes
operative, the agreement must be'approved-by the voters of each jurisdiction at a general
or direct primary election. This proposed.constitutional amendment would also allow the
agreement to become operative_ if the agreement is approved by a 2/3 vote of the
governing body of each jurisdiction.
AB 972(3:orlakson). Local Government Efficiency. This bill will be -a collection of
proposals that will relieve local governments.of unnecessary and burdensome'mandates.
The measure will establish a seed fund to match local resources dedicated to local agency
consolidation studies.
AB 719(3:orlakson). PropeM Tax Administration Loan Program. This bill requires
• the stateto pay its portion of the costs of property tax administration.
#10 5 3/14/97
Most of this legislation will be reviewed at the upcoming policy committees of the League on
March 20 and 21. While the proposals are varied and to some extent confusing, and in some •
cases perhaps even contradictory,this is somewhat of a signal that local government finance is an
issue that promises a great amount of activity this session.
PROPOSITION 218 LEGISLATION-SB 919/AB 1506
Last, but certainly not least, the League-sponsored legislation to address the ambiguities,
inconsistencies and contradictions in Proposition 218 has been introduced for the session. There
are two proposals sponsored by the League. In the Senate, SB 919 has been introduced by
Senator Dick Rainey from the Contra Costa County area. Senator Rainey's bill is an urgency
measure that will be used to deal with the more immediate questions in Proposition 218. The
other measure is AB 1506 which has been introduced by Assembly Member Deborah Ortiz from
the Sacramento County area. The Ortiz measure is intended to be the vehicle to address some of
the more long-term issues in Proposition 218.
While the measures are now in print, the language is not very representative of the status of the
discussions and negotiations that have been going on with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's
Association and other"taxpayer" groups. These discussions have been underway for months and
will likely continue throughout the session. We will keep.you closely informed about_ the
progress of negotiations and the current status of the provisions in the legislation.
GISLATIVE ACTIVITIES********************
1. School Facilities -AB 252 eonard), Oppose.
2 Public Works. Force Acc nt-SB 874(Calderon),Information.
3. Armories. Homeless Shelte SR 255 (Lee),AB 242 (Honda), Support.
4. Sexually-Oriented Business. oval Regulation AB 726(Baugh),Support.
IVE ACTIVITIES
UCLA Extension Program: 21st entury California;Anticipating and Planning for
Growth and Environmental Quah -Information.
6. ACTrVIMS
Smokina and-Tobacco. New FT) on Access to Minors. Information.
#10 6
3/14/97
�, ■ Last November, voters passed
• Proposition 218, which made it even "
bigmess' .`,l more difficult to enact local fees;such
as fire protection fees without v t '•'�
l,. voter.
,a, approval. •�w
for local . In January, a Los Angeles court'='
~� invalidated a measure enacted by
'`_` -Wilson and the Legislature to shift$50
` million in local sales tax funds,.
• ``' originally raised to enhance bus serv-
aenc�es ices, to the Los Angeles.,County, y
g government, which was facing bank-.=':
,. ruptcy. The money must now bea�.�
SACRAMENTO — Administrators ; „ returned,'with interest, to the Metro-
and elected overseers of California's �j- politan Transportation Authority..- 'Ni j
cities and counties are beginning to –, ..i
■bast week,a state appellate court ;,
Put together their 1997.98 budgets this ' ruled that Los Angeles County's sharp
spring and few like -what they're g
seeing. . ..i.- cut in "general assistance" welfare
California's overall economy may,, grants, enacted in 1993 as part of,the
be pulling sharply out of the worst'.,!- _ effort to stave off fiscal collapse,was
recession in a half-century but for'-''" illegal. The county now faces .the
those who operate prospect of paying back 90,000 general;'n�
local governments, r °k"• relief recipients some$140 million.
r•;
the fiscal squeeze ■Another appellate court in North.
has become ever- ern California ruled,meanwhile;that ;. ;;1
tighter. T a special"parcel tax"imposed by East ;
Although sales Palo Alto; a very poor community-in
tax revenues have A San Mateo County, was also illegaL
perked up with •:: East Palo -Alto may-have to repay !I-
economic recovery, "" taxpayers up to$5 million,the equiva- �+
Property taxes re-
main
e "-- lent of its annual budget. and city
main flat, even de >'
clining in some 10- officials say bankruptcy may be their; .1.
`" only option.
cales, because �a
DWBfs»`� These developments are merely the
recession clobbered values and the latest indications that the hodgepodge
much-awaited resurgence of residen.' = system of local finance is teetering on
tial and commercial construction has•:`,, the brink of total disaster.
yet to materialize. z= The governor and the Legislature` •tij
That wound be tolerable were it not'L"." cannot ignore the plight of local : j;
for a series of unrelated decisions by '4 governments because they assumed
the governor, the.Legislature, voters`- direct responsibility for local finances
and the courts that have had the 1 in the wake of Proposition 13,the 1978
combined effect of putting local gov.:
ernments in a vise,to wit property tax reduction measure.What Ve
was supposed porary,
_ PP�d to be a tem i.: :"
■ Gov.Pete Wilson and lawmakers;�',„ "bailout" to ease, the transition-to i
simply grabbed several billion dollars_�sa lower property tax revenues became a
a year in local property tax revenues.' .+. morass that defies understandiri ►
to balance the state's budget during;:.i` much less rationality. understanding
'.
the recession and have been un The governor and Legislature �+
wfllitig ri, can,-.,
to return the money even thoughstate - and often do,simply starve the locals
revenues have surged. Wilson even:.w whenever the state's own finances are z:It '
vetoed a bill that would have put a cap;� squeezed.Nobody in local government
on the property tax shift and allowed " knows more than a few months'in r'K
local governments to recover taxes :.,; advance what revenues can be expect.I'Li
from future development. "•" ed. And there's constant tension be.t_r v°I .. -
''•p• tween legally mandated services and�,:1y '
■ In 1995,the state Supreme Court'. those with popular su
porL
reduced local revenue flexibility by 'T1 If those in the state Capitol did!
invalidating a Santa Clara County nothing more this year than:bran
sales tax for transportation and de•.':,°= 6: � ,
creeing that any new local tax must u_ some sense to this nonsensical situa�._e
tion, they would be earning their MZ;j
obtain voter approval,'thus putting a money.
cloud on billions of dollars in non ;`f d
property taxes imposed by local gov-i iE
ernments during the preceding dec-
. ade.
7AOA7
• Date: May 9, 1997
To: Mayors and City Council Members of the Cities of San Luis Obispo
County
From: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
Subject: County Rezoning and Urban-Type Development Approvals Outside of Cities
Recommendation: Establish a subcommittee of City and County representatives to explore the
possibility of a formal agreement with the County to restrict unincorporated urban
development adjacent to but outside of established city urban reserve lines.
BACKGROUND
Contemporary economic and social developments in California have acted to undermine the.
established relationship of cities and counties relative to good urban development. The
restructuring of revenue sources and allocations to the various levels of government, coupled with
the shifting of greater responsibility for provision of social services to county and municipal
,jurisdictions, has directly impacted land use decision making. The fiscalization of land use is a
common catch phrase used to describe the increasing competitiveness of local governments in .;£.
• their quest for secure and productive revenue sources. Sales tax generators, in particular, are
eagerly sought after. The result,in land use terms, can be poorly planned and/or located
development that detracts from the quality and livability of our cities, and the Counties, and
diminishes the clarity of purpose that should distinguish the function of city and county
governments.
Incorporated cities have traditionally been considered to be the most appropriate, responsive and
efficient providers of urban services. Counties were considered the champions of the rural or
agricultural citizenry and a predominantly agrarian life style. The interface between these two
distinct development concepts is defined by the League of California Cities as a boundary
mutually recognized by the abutting jurisdictions:
Urban Reserve, or Urban Limit, Line:An area, identified through official public policy,
within which urban development will be allowed during a specific time period Beyond
this line, using a variety of growth management tools such as acreage zoning and limits
on capital improvements, development is prohibited or strongly discouraged
THE CURRENT SITJATION
Jurisdictions within our local region have respected this rural-urban model as much as most other
areas in the state. The City of San Luis Obispo, for example, has been working for many years
• with San Luis Obispo County to define an acceptable boundary to contain urban development.
Recently adopted land use plans-Df both agencies contain many polices that work toward that
e � 4
common goal. An example of how our City's policies contrast with the County's is attached. •
Undoubtedly, other cities have policies of a similar nature.
However, the City's experience in relying on the County to adhere to their own, and respect the
City's, land use plans is not encouraging. In their recent action to adopt the County's San Luis
Obispo Area Plan, the Board of Supervisors re-designated approximately 300 acres of land
outside the City's Urban Reserve Line from agricultural/rural to industrial. This action was taken
in conflict with the draft plan recommended by their own Planning Commission and staff. The
City strongly objected to this action because the amount of Services and Manufacturing land use
shown within our Urban Reserve Line is calculated to provide 20 years of capacity ata 3%
r 30 2° rat and 60 ears at a 1%rate.
absorptionate, years at /o e, y
If one assumes that this property outside the URL would develop under County control it would
dilute the economic benefit available to either jurisdiction. The fiscal analysis done in conjunction
with the County plan update concluded that annexation to the City of the airport area properties
would result in net added revenue to the County. At the same time the City would receive
economic benefit to offset the costs of service provision and the impacts of additional growth. On
the other hand, the study concluded that the continuation of urban-like development in the County
results in the worst fiscal outcome for the County.
As the County ignores existing urban reserve lines, it works against City and County policies
intended to limit urban sprawl. If the cities cannot rely on the County to do this, other strategies
that do not rely on mutual dependence will need to be explored. One obvious possibility will be •
for cities to annex much more land than is needed for urban development, and apply their own
rural or agricultural zoning to insure that adopted urban reserve lines have their intended effect.
However, experience in other parts of the state, such as Ventura and Yolo Counties, show that
simple, direct and cooperative formal agreements between included jurisdictions can achieve the
same result.
The current City-County agreement regarding tax sharing in annexation areas in San Luis Obispo
County shows that mutually beneficial solutions can be achieved here as well. Therefore, our
recommendation is to establish a committee of city and county representatives to explore the
creation of a formal agreement restricting urban development adjacent to but outside of
established city urban reserve lines.
Attached is a draft memorandum of understanding, which City staff has drafted and forwarded to
County staff for consideration.
• ATTACHMENT 1: EXCERPTS FROM COUNTY AND CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENTS REGARDING URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA ADRONING THE CITY.
The City General Plan Land Use Element includes policies such as the following to foster such
cooperation.
1.7.1: Open Space Protection
Within the City's planning area and outside the urban reserve line, undeveloped land
should be kept open. Prime agricultural 'land, productive agricultural land and
potentially productive agricultural land should be protected for farming. Scenic lands,
sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be
permanently protected as open space.
1.16.7. Consistent Plans
The City will seek County Board of Supervisors approval amending the County Land
Use Element to make it consistent with this element,,within San Luis Obispo's planning
Area The City will work with the County during updates of the County's plan for the San
Luis Obispo planning area _
• 1.16.8: City-County Agreement
The City will pursue a memorandum of understanding between the City and County
governments, pledging that neither agency will approve a substantial amendment to its
plan for San Luis Obispo's planning area without carefully considering the comment and
recommendation of the other agency. The key feature of the memorandum would be the
City's acceptance of the planned amount of growth and the County's agreement to not
allow urban development within the planning area but outside the City.
The County's San Luis Obispo Area Plan contains complementary policies.
4.A.1 (pg. 4-2)
Plan compact communities Urban communities should be compact, and rural areas
maintained in a largely undeveloped state. The more compact a community, the lower its
vehicle trips and miles traveled and the easier it is for people to walk, bike, or take
public transit to meet their transportation needs
The City of Sart Luis Obispo has an urban edge that is more distinct than marry other
communities in the state. However, land use proposals at the urban fringe could threaten
to blur that edge and create urban sprawl, and therefore this plan,proposes to maintain
• the city's urban edge and to enhance it where possible. t
Areas within the urban reserve line around San Luis Obispo and within the Los •
Ranchos/Edna Village have been planned for urban density development while areas
outside of the urban or village reserve lines are maintained in larger parcels and in uses
compatible with the agricultural production and visual valued they contain. Only a few
pockets of Residential Rural category have been established in order to recognize
existing ownership and use patterns
Additional text at page 44 discusses community separation and rural character .
Separation between communities provides each community an opportunity to develop its
own distinctive identity. The physical difference between each community is strengthened
by the intervening rural lana which can contribute to a unique sense of arrival or
- departure. The open areas between each town provide a rural visual character. Open
areas that separate communities,..., should be retained through zoning that affects the
amount and location of development. The distinct change in the amount of development
at the edges of the City of San Luis Obispo and the Los Rancho& dna Village establish
recognizable boundaries to each community.
DR
AFT
• MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REGARDING
PLANNING CONSISTENCY FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO GREENBELT/SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING AREA
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made this of , 1997,by and between
the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (hereinafter called "City"), and the COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO(hereinafter called "County"),with regard to the following:
RECITALS
Whereas, the City has designated an area of approximately 36,000 acres surrounding the City as
the SAN LUIS OBISPO GREENBELT, wherein the City is desirous of permanently protecting open
space, agricultural,rural, and scenic values; and
Whereas, the County has designated an area of approximately 54,000 acres in the vicinity of the
City as the SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING AREA, which area includes in its entirety said Greenbelt
as well as the City itself,and
Whereas, the County has legal jurisdiction over said Planning Area-(except-_for-areas within the
City limits)and said Greenbelt for planning purposes;and
Whereas,both City and County desire that the policies and programs found within their respective
• planning documents be consistent with those of the other party to the greatest extent feasible;and
Whereas, both City and County further desire that each will cooperate with the other in matters of
mutual interest within said Greenbelt and Planning Area.
Now,therefore, it is understood and mutually agreed:
1. The City and County shall work together to develop and retain consistency between their
respective plans for the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt,for the purposes of preserving the integrity of City
borders, open space, a healthy agricultural economy,wildlife habitat, and to encourage appropriate site
development that incorporates conservation of those resources for the long term.
2. The County shall cause any proposed development, rezoning, General Plan amendment,
transfer of development credit, or other land use change request within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt
to be referred to the City Administrative Officer for review and comment, and shall provide a
reasonable period of time for this review and comment to occur.
3. The County shall duly consider such comment in determining how to proceed with the
application.
4. The City shall cause any proposal by City to acquire interest in land within the San Luis Obispo
Greenbelt to be referred to the County Executive Officer of the County for review and comment, and
shall provide a reasonable period of time for this review and comment to occur.
5. The City shall duly consider such comment in determining how to proceed with the proposal.
• 6... The City and County_shill each designate representatives to meet together regularly for the
purpose of determining how the interests of both jurisdictions can best be met by meeting, referral, .
communication, shared planning, and other activities designed for mutual cooperation and joint action
pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: Date:
Mayor Allen Settle
Date:
Bonnie L. Gawt; City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
By: Date:
City Attorney
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By: Date:
Chairperson
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
James B.Lindholm,Jr.
County Counsel
By: Date:
Deputy County Counsel
_
it _
ITEM NO. 7G
- WILL BE DISTRIBUTED
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
•
MEMO
TO: HONORABLE MAYORS AND CITY COUNCILS
SUBJECT: A PROPOSAL TO EXPLORE PLACING A COUNTY WIDE '/z CENT SALES
TAX MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 1998 BALLOT
DATE: JUNE 5, 1997
Definition of the problem:
An analysis of local street and road maintenance needs prepared by the San;Luis Obispo Council
of Governments determined that a backlog of$52 to$140 million in projects existing throughout
the region could not be fully funded within existing resources.Elected officials from each city
can readily identify needed transportation projects within their respective communities that have
not been addressed due to the lack of funding. With the passage of Proposition 218 the voters_
reinforced their right to vote on taxes and have changed the way local governments raise
revenues for public purposes. When combined,these factors make it nearly impossible for any
one city alone to correct the transportation problems occurring within its jurisdiction.
No existing source of funding for transportation improvements appears to offer a comprehensive
solution to street maintenance needs of the cities within San Luis Obispo County. At the Federal
level,the Internodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA)monies are projected to rise
only nominally over the next few years. State efforts at funding transportation improvements
have focused on providing greater flexibility in using the funds but with no additional funding.
Potential solution:
Working together the cities could explore placing a county wide measure on the November 1998
ballot to provide additional revenue to correct the street maintenance problems in our local
jurisdictions. A ballot measure increasing the sales tax '/z percent would generate$11 million to
correct the transportation problems throughout the region. If approved,the county-wide measure
would comprehensively address the transportation needs of the region. There is a proven track
record for.this type of approach with numerous other counties having successfully addressed
their transportation problems using a similar method.
Even though there are several advantages to this type of approach,placing a ballot measure on
the November ballot without sufficient study will virtually guarantee failure. A number of
questions must be answered before a final determination is made on whether or not to place a
ballot measure before the voters. The following is a summary of the issues that must be resolved
before a ballot measure could be placed before the voters:
ID
•
1. . Are the voters in San Luis Obispo County supportive of a sales tax measure to address
transportation problems in the region?
2. How will Proposition 218 affect the ballot measure?
3. Will the ballot measure be a special tax, general tax or modeled after the Santa Clara
measure?
4. Who will have administrative responsibility for distributing the revenues?
5. How will the revenue proceeds be distributed to the various cities and county?
Obviously there are more issues that would need to be resolved before a formal commitment to
place a ballot measure before the voters is made.
Proposed strategy
The first step in the process would begin with the seven cities adopting the attached resolution
agreeing to explore the potential of placing a transportation measure before the voters in 1998. In
addition,formation of a working group is needed to develop solutions to various concerns that
are raised when a ballot measure is proposed,ensure compliance with Proposition 218, conduct a •
voter survey to determine the level of support and structure the ballot measure. It is
recommended that the working group consist of the Mayors, City Managers,two County
Supervisors, County Chief Administrative Officer and representatives from SLOCOG. The
working group members would have the added responsibility of providing regular status reports
to their respective boards.
Adoption of the attached resolution would allow the exploration of a method to correct the long
term transportation problems within the region.
Attachments:
Joint Resolution No. 01-97
Countywide Local Option Sales Tax Measure; Special vs. General Purpose Options
- Local Option Sales Tax Program Revenue Allocation; Comparison of Selected
Successful Counties
- Draft Countywide pavement Maintenance&Rehabilitation Needs; Summary of Findings,
May, 1997
- Analysis of Options&Methods to Fund the Maintainance and Improvement of the Local
&Regional Transportation System
- Map; Local Option Sales Tax Counties
• JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 01-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
AGREEING TO EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF
PLACING A %: CENT SALES TAX MEASURE ON THE
NOVEMBER 1998 BALLOT
WHEREAS, SLOCOG has identified a total of$52 to $140 million in existing backlog of
needed road maintenance and rehabilitation that could not be carried out within current funding;
and
WHEREAS,Federal and State funding for street maintenance and rehabilitation is not
expected to increase in the future; and
WHEREAS,exploring the feasibility of placing a%z cent sales tax measure on the ballot
could create the solution to the region's transportation problems; and
WHEREAS,other counties in the State encompassing 80%of the population of
California have utilized this method to successfully address their transportation problems.
• NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis -
Obispo County:
1. The cities agree to explore placing a%Z cent sales tax measure on the November
1998 ballot. _
2. That a working group of Mayors and City Managers meet to determine the
feasibility of proposing a '/i sales tax measure.
3. That County and SLOCOG representatives be invited to participate in the working
group to explore the feasibility of a ballot measure.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County
at a special joint meeting held on the 5th day of June, 1997.
MAYOR,CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
ATTEST:
• CITY CLERK
Joint Resolution •
o ion No O 1-97
MAYOR, CITY OF ATASCADERO
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK -
MAYOR, CITY OF GROVER BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR, CITY OF MORRO BAY
ATTEST: •
CITY CLERK
MAYOR, CITY OF PASO ROBLES
ATTEST:
CITY.CLERK
MAYOR, CITY OF PISMO BEACH
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK -
MAYOR, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ATTEST: •
CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
• Countywide Local Option Sales Tax Measure
Special vs General Purpose Options
Santa Clara County Tax &
Special Tax General Tax Advisory Measures
Revenue designated for specific Revenueusesare not designated
General purposes: highway, road&transit Revenue uses are not designated and may be used for any general
Definition improvements; street&road and may be used for any purpose purpose; accompanied by a
maintenance, etc separate advisory measure
Approved by Co. Bd. of Sups., No plan allowed since by No plan allowed. Ballot measure
Expenditure and City Councils representing definition it is a general tax, accompanied by non-binding,
Plan majority of cities with majority of revenue must go into general advisory measure providing
population in incorporated areas fund. suggested expenditure plan.
Requires approval of ordinance Requires adoption of ordinance o Requires adoption of ordinance o
Placement on by majority of Cities with majority q p q p
Ballot of population in county and Co. resolution on a 2/3rds vote by resolution on a 2/3rds vote Co.
Bd.of Supervisors Co.Bd.of Supervisors- Bd.of Supervisors(1)
Voter
Requirement 2/3rds Majority(1)` Majority(1)
Tax Rate: Up to 1%in .5 or 1%steps Up to 1%in .5 or 1%steps Up to 1%in .5 or 1%steps
otal Years: Up to 20 years Up to 20 years Up to 20 years
Funding: At.5%$11 Million annually At.5%$11 Million annually At.5%$11 Million annually
Administrative New Authority established by Co.
Responsibility Bd.of Sups.or existing County Bd.of Supervisors County Bd. of Supervisors
transportation planning agency
Revenue May be approved concurrrently May be approved concurrrently May be approved concurrrently
Bonds with tax increase with tax increase with tax increase
Steering Committee;Community
Actions Steering Committee;Community based campaign organization;
suggested for based campaign organization; Steering Committee; Community Public opinion survey;
voter approval Public opinion survey; based campaign organization Expenditure plan based on poll;
Expenditure plan based on poll. Establishment of watchdog
committee.
Requires majority vote; Non-
binding advisory measure
Requires 2/3rd vote;All revenue Requires majority vote,Voters are suggests revenue uses and
earmarked and allocated for requires intergovernmental trust
Issues projects and agencies. voters asked to vote for a tax increase specificvoter knowledge of uses
know what they are voting for. for no sppurpose enhances passage;expenditures
monitoried by watchdog
committee;
(1) Note: Enabling legislation required for any sales tax increase sought by a city.
s�
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
Local Option Sales Tax Program Revenue Allocation
• Comparision of Selected Successful Counties
Responsible Ballot Total Funding Formula for
Agency Year Vote Years Allocations Allocations
Off the top: $1 million for bike facilities;
San Diego County and $50,000 base for each jurisdiction Any excess funds
Regional 54% distributed to locals
Transportation 1987 yes; 20 per year. Of the remainder: 1/3rd for based 2/3rd on
State Highway Projects; 1/3rd for public
Commission 46/o no population & 1/3rd on
(SANDAG) transit; 1/3rd for local streets & roads road miles
maintenance & construction
Off the top: $3 million for bike & ped.
Contra Costa trails; and $50,000 base for each After$50,000 basic
Transportation 58% jurisdiction per year. Of remainder: allocation, remaining
Commission 1988 yes; 20 41% for highways & arterials; 20% for funds allocated 50%
(CCTC) 42% no street maintenance& improvement; on population & 50%
28% for transit including Bart extension on road miles
®ional commuter trails; -
70% to W. Co., 55% for hwys & Funds for local
Riverside County 79%° commuter rail, 40% for local streets; streets & roads
Transportation 1988 yes; 20 27% to Coachella°Vly, with 55% for allocated based 75%
mmission (RCTC) 21% no hwys &arterials, 40% local streets, 5% on population, 25%
for specialized trans; 3% to Palo Verde on measure revenue
Valley for local streets generated
Santa Barbara Off the top: $50,000 base for each After$50,000 base all
County Local 55% jurisdiction. Of the remainder. 30% for local street & road
Transportation 1989 yes; 20 highways, interchanges & regional funds allocated based
Authority 45% no projects, 70% for local street& road
(SBCOG) improvements and maintenance on population
Off the top: $50,000 base for each After$50,000 basic
jurisdiction. Of the remainder. 25% for
Los Angeles County 51% freeways, highways, major streets, & allocation, remaining
Transportation funds allocated 50%
11990 yes; 20 interchanges; 30%for systems mgmt.
Commission 49% no improvements, incl. signals, traffic mgmt on population & 50%
(LACTC) o on square yards of
& bike facilities; 30/o for local streets &
roads. 15% transit streets & roads
In 1992, in the Guardino Decision, the Ca.'Supreme Court invalidated sales tax increase measures
approved by majority but less than 2/3rds vote; since then special taxes have required a 2/3rds vote.
Santa Clara County Advisory measure containing a broad
Transportation Measure 79% list of highway, bus and rail transit, and
Commission A (1996) Yes; 9 local street maintenance projects to be No formula
(SCCTC) 21% no reviewed by by a "citizens watchdog
committee"
manta Clara County 51
Transportation Measure General tax increase with no
Commission B (1996) yes; 9 expenditure plan
/o
(SCCTC) 49 no
San Luis 0bisp9_Coon U:f Governments
:. 3i'sft
Countywide Pavement ntenanc.aA Rehabilitation Needs
Sita gs
Purpose and Background
This report provides an analysis of current local street and road pavement maintenance and rehabilitation
needs countywide. It is intended to assist the region and local jurisdictions in developing a strategy to
maintain and improve the existing street and road system and address the continued decline in funding for
this purpose.
There are 1,825 miles of local roads in the San Luis Obispo region: 1,284 miles are the responsibility of
the County, and 541 miles of the cities. Funding available for road maintenance has not kept pace with the
needs. Without an active maintenance program, the typical roadway surface will eventually deteriorate to
a point where it must be reconstructed at a significant cost. Based on this analysis, local jurisdictions
should consider expanding their preventive maintenance programs now in order to reduce the need to
cant' out more extensive roadway rehabilitation or reconstruction projects in the future.
Note: This analysis is based on average urban and rural street widths, and common maintenance &
rehabilitation strategies and costs. Actual street and mad widths, maintenance strategies and costs may
vary from those used in this analysis based on available resources, and engineering standards and
policies.
Major Findings:
• Countywide
1. 27% of all roads (a total of 492 miles) in the region are in poor condition The statewide average
for roads in this condition is 11%. Typically, such roads require at least a thick (20) overlay for full
rehabilitation. The estimated total cost to cavy out all thick overlay projects ranges from $40.3 million
to $97.6 million.
2. 9% of all roads (a total of 173 miles) are in medium condition The statewide average for roads-in
this condition is 12%. Typically, such roads require at least a thin (1') overlay for full rehabilitation. The
estimated total cost to cavy out all necessary thin overlay projects ranges from $6.8 million to $22.7
million.
3. 27% of all roads (a total of 493 miles) are in fair condition The statewide average for roads in this
condition is 43%. Typically, such roads require only crack sealing and patching work to maintain and
extend their service life. The estimated total cost to cavy out all necessary sealing and patching work
ranges from $651.000 to $1.9 million.
4. 37% of all roads (a total of 669 miles) are in good or best condition The statewide average for
roads in this condition is 34%. Typically, such roads currently require no maintenance work. Typically,
such roads were built or resurfaced within the past ten years.
5. Total Cost to carry out all currently identified work - The estimated total cost to cavy out all
necessary work, including: crack or slurry sealing, patching, and thin or thick overlays (based on the
standard strategies and costs used in this study ranges from $52.5 million to $142.8 million.
• Local Jurisdiction Summaries
• City of Arroyo Grande - No inventory was completed for Arroyo Grande or Pismo Beach at the time of
this report. The following. ratings are based on averaging the findings of the other five cities: 32% of
road miles (19 miles) are rated "good" or "best"and require no current work; 31% (19 miles) are rated
"fair", requiring crack sealing and patching; 15% (9 miles) are rated "medium", requiring a thin (1")
a7
overlay; and 21% (13 miles) are rated "poor", requiring a thick (2") overlay. The estimated cost for all
work ranges from $2.25 million to $6.1 million. The FY 96/97 the road maintenance budget is•
$115,000.
• City of Atascadero - Based on preliminary results from an inventory in 1997: 50% of road miles (70
miles) are rated "good" or "best' and require no current work; 13% (18 miles) are rated "fair", requiring
crack sealing and patching; 5% (7 miles) are rated "medium" requiring a thin (1") overlay; ay-d 32% (45
miles) are rated "poor', requiring a thick (2") overlay. The estimated cost for all work range -from $6.18
million to $15.8 million. The FY 96/97 road maintenance budget is expected to be about t 150,000.
• City of Grover Beach - Based on an inventory in 1996: 45% of road miles (23 miles) are rated "good"
or "best" and require no current work; 25% (13 miles) are rated "fair", requiring crack sealing and
patching; 15% '8 miles) are rated "medium", requiring a thin (1") overlay; and 15% (8 miles) are rated
poor, requiring a thick (2') overlay. The estimated cost for all work ranges from $1.54 million to $4.3
million. The FY 96/97 road maintenance budget is $80,000.
• City of Morro Bay- Based on an inventory completed in 1996: 35% of road miles (21 miles) are rated
"good" or"best" and require no current work; 10% (5 miles) are rated "fair", requiring crack sealing and
patching; 5% (2 miles) are rated "medium), requiring a thin (10) overlay; and 50% (24 miles) are rated
poor, requiring a thick (2" overlay). The estimated cost for all work ranges from $3.17 million to $8
million. The FY 96/97 road maintenance budget is $50,000. :
• City of Paso Robles - Based on updated inventory: 20% of road miles (20 miles) are rated "good" or
"best" and require no current work; 40% (40 miles) are rated "fair", requiring crack sealing and patching;
35% (35 miles) are rated "medium", requiring a thin (1') overlay; and 4% (4 miles) are rated "poor"'
requiring a thick (2') overlay. The estimated cost for all work ranges from $1.7 million to $8.9 million. .
The City budget for road maintenance varies from year to year. In FY 95/96 it was about $340,000, the
FY 96/97 budget is $50,000,and in FY 97/98 it is expected to increase to about$350,000.
• City of Pismo Beach - No inventory was completed for Arroyo Grande or Pismo Beach at the time of
this report, therefore the following ratings are based on averaging the findings of the other five cities:
32% of road miles (11 miles) are rated "good" or "best" and require no current work; 31% are rated
"fair" , requiring crack sealing and patching; 10% (3 miles) are rated medium, requiring a thin (11
overlay; and 21% (7 miles) are rated "poor", requiring a thick (2') overlay. The estimated cost for all
work ranges from $1.1 million to $2.9 million. The FY 96/97 road maintenance budget is $60,000.
• City of San Luis Obispo - The city is currently completing an update of its road inventory, of which
about 70% of the work has been completed. Based on the roads already evaluated: 50% of road
miles (64 miles) are rated "good" or"best" and require no current work; 22% (22 miles) are-rated "fair",
requiring crack sealing and patching; 13% (14 miles) are rated "medium) requiring a thin (1") overlay;
and 5% (6 miles) are rated "poor', requiring a thick (2') overlay,. The estimated cost for all work (based
on the standard maintenance strategy and costs used in this analysis) ranges from $2 million to $5.9
million. City staff estimate, based upon their new pavement management program, that the cost
ranges from $8.9 to $15 million to bring the roads up to 100%). The FY 96/97 road maintenance
budget is $1.2 million.
• San Luis Obispo County - An inventory was completed in 1989 (an update is scheduled to begin in
June, 1997). Based on the 1989 inventory: 35% of all road miles (449 miles) are rated "good" or"best"
and require no current work; 25% (321 miles) are rated "fair", requiring crack sealing and patching; 10% •
(128•miles) are rated "medium" requiring a thin (1") overlay or seal coat (the County uses a seal coat
instead of a thin overlay); and 30% (385 miles) are rated "poor" requiring a thick (2") overlay. The
estimated cost for all work (based on the standard maintenance strategy and costs used in this
analysis) ranges from $34.5 million to $90.6 million County engineering staff estimate that the total
cost for all required work is approximately $28.5 million. The FY 96/97 road maintenance budget is
$2.5 million, which is being used only for crack sealing and patching. lbm
•
AN ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS AND METHODS TO
FUND THE MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENT
OF THE LOCAL, & REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Focused on implementation of the Local Option Sales Tax
What is the problem?
1 : The ability of the government to raise taxes'to pay for all public purposes,
including transportation improvements,has been limited since the late 1970's by
significant legal challenges, including Proposition 13 which limited the use of the
Property tax as a primary method of funding improvements,and-Proposition 62 which
established the 2/3 voter approval requirement for special taxes. In 1995, the State
Supreme Court ruled in the Guardino decision that a sales tax increase for a specific
purpose required a 2/3rd vote.
2. Since the mid 1980's the need to increase funding at the local,regional and state
level for transportation system maintenance and improvement has been recognized
throughout California. In response,a number of laws were enacted by the State
Legislature providing counties with the authority to raise their local sales tax to provide
• funding for these purposes. Every jurisdiction in the region is not spending sufficient
funding to adequately maintain their street and road system.
3. SLOCOG staff recently prepared an analysis of countywide local street and road
maintenance needs for all jurisdictions in the region and found that there was about a$48
million total existing backlog of needed maintenance that could not be carried out within
currently limited funding.
4. In late 1989 SLOCOG funded a countywide public opinion survey to determine if there
would be support for a Measure to be placed on the 1990 ballot that would increase the
local sales tax by %2 cent. A steering committee was formed and significant information
on the issue was developed; but the effort was abandoned when polling data questioned
whether a measure could succeed. The survey found that voters would give the highest
level of support for a%2 cent increase in the sales tax if a portion of the funding was used
on the following priorities:
• 76%support for maintenance of existing streets and roads;
• 720%support for protecting open space;
• 68%support for road and highway improvements;
• 68%support for construction of an interchange at Highway 1 and Cuesta College;
• 63%support for widening Route 46 East to four lanes.
• 68%support for providing express bus service between San Luis Obispo and outlying
communities.
5. Since 1994 the voters in nineteen counties(an area with over 90 percent of the state
population)have approved increases in the sales tax to pay for transportation system
improvements,or these two were overturned by the counts: a.5%increase in Monterey
County in 1989; and a.5% increase in Santa Clara County in 1992. IN!Q
i
What are our options?
1. At the Federal level,the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) is expected to occur by the end of 1997. While there has
been some discussion of providing increased flexibility in the use of Federal funding, and
in providing nominal fund increases through changes in formulas, no major increase in
funding is expected.
2. It appears unlikely the State Legislature will by itself enact legislation increasing the gas
tax or the state sales tax to pay for transportation improvements. In fact, recent history
has shown that at the state level,there is no desire to increase taxes of any kind. The State
reaction has been to provide local and regional entities the authority needed to increase
taxes as necessary by local action.
3. A major legislative effort to reform the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP)process has been ongoing for the past two years led by Senator Kopp. The current
version of his bill(SB45)will, if enacted into law,provide additional flexibility to local
jurisdictions for the use of State gas tax funds but does not provide an increase in
funding.
4. Since additional funding probably wont or cant be provided at the State or Federal level,
the practical conclusion to make is that local and regional agencies must take more
responsibility to pay for the maintenance and improvement of their transportation system
via general funds, assessment districts,developer fees, or regional sales taxes.
5. State law does provide for a local option fuel tax increase with approval of the
Supervisors,a majority of the city councils which represent a majority of the population
and a two thirds approval of the electorate. Such a tax is considered very difficult if not
impossible to implement in an area like San-Luis Obispo County. It has been estimated
that it would take a 20 cent increase in the fuel tax to provide the same revenue as a%:
cent increase in the sales tax. No local option gas tax measure has ever been approved.
6. The means of raising funding for transportation improvements that is the most technically
feasible,politically appropriate, and most acceptable to the public is to seek an increase in
the sales tax,either for a specific:purpose (requiring a two-thirds vote)or a general
purpose(requiring a majority vote).
7. The amount of new revenue which would be produced annually in San Luis Obispo
County from a ''/z percent increase in'the sales tax is approximately $10 million, at 1
percent it would produce approximately S20 million.
•
2. Based on the trend in State and Federal government policies, it is becoming necessary for
action at the local (county) level to provide the additional funding necessary for the
maintenance and improvement of the transportation system.
3. Statewide data shows that the success of the vast majority of sales tax increase measures
(70%) was primarily due to the measure being carefully designed based on
comprehensive initial public opinion poling and follow-up tracking polls, and a clearly
defined expenditure plan based on the polling data including only those projects that have
broad based support and excluding any project that would-be opposed by any segment of
the population.
Local Option Sales Tax Counties
DEL
NO
SISWOL ; MODOC LEGEND
LTC ; tic
— Multi-County RTPAs Boundaries
® o Statutorily Created RTPAs(6)
t 9 SEIASTA ,
'
mifly LTC , IASSEN
HUMBOWT ( LTC i LTC ® 6 Transportation Planning Agencies
COG .,
�'. •-._. - -�-'-; SACRAMENTO
T ' ®� - LTC Local Transportation Commission
AREA COUNCIL p°
- , OF GOVERNMENTS
LTC rtL LTCC ($ACOGJ'• COG Council of Governments
9 __ ___� i
MENDOCINO 1 e �� ® � i _
COG _;., GLENN ' 8um ,® AOG Association of Governments
LTC `! COG _ e0
TAHOE REGIONAL
GDL&A wne� ITC%, L%TcR 5"<PLANNING AGENCY
COG . LTC i — (TBPA) �LAS`r� < 7tSC -S
•1 �" e
YOLO ; EL DORADO
�. ;
s°NOM" `• LTC ALPINENAPA LTC �.
u�ADoa`' ,
LTCTUOLUMNE
METROPOLITAN
C"YW' SAN 10AAUUL tQ
,LTC./ (OG •� Am
TRANSPORTATION CONTRA COSTA COG tic
• COMMISSION SANET'AIKISCO =:=.=
(MTQ ALAMED ® -
-STANISLO,•✓ `�
SANMATEO i COG,' ` LTC ,..i B : `r•_._._.
SANTA am : LTC,
00 MERCED ,% Tomo
surrAcalu , COG ' COG i
LTC —Yi �•.._— ——.—•—•; WO
LTC
SAN NENDO'.. ®
COG !
TM
COG
ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREYLALo TxtEC�t CLOG
BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ._._.-.i._._._._.-._._.__._.i.-
(AMBAG) i
SAN WIS OM 01I ® _
COG ' COG
—•ILSAN WWDIRO
' AOG
SANTABARBARA �
COG '
YENtURA 1 ;
CTC } LOSANGElES
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA avEASmE
O
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS CTC ,_._._._.-•-
(SCAG) - -
e
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
• METROPOLITAN SAX DIEGO AOG
AOG
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
City of Morro Bay
's i.. .a. MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA 93442
4
-33 - "
SOS-772-6200 c x `
7"-
JOINT
`JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCILS
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
June 5, 1997
IN
TO: Honorable Mayors and City Council Members of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,Grover
Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo
FROM: City of Morro Bay, Department of Public Works
SUBJECT: Public, Education and Government(PEG)Access on Cable Television
Cable television PEG access channels typically provide community-oriented programming such as
local news, public announcements, distance education and government meetings. These channels
allow the opportunity for the public, educational institutions and governmental agencies to provide
local commercial-free informational and educational programming over cable television. These
types of programs are usually programmed by individuals and locals organizations, on either public,
• education or government channels.
Under the 1984 Cable Act, local franchising authorities could negotiate with the cable operators to
set aside channels for PEG use and provide services, facilities and equipment to support the use of
these channels; however, the Cable Act stipulates that if the cable operator is required to provide
operational support for those channels, that costs must be supported by the franchise fee.
Government Access
The Cable Act of 1984 provides little specification as to what government access entails: The policy
for how it is used lies within the governmental agency itself. Usually the channel is used by a city
to provide public information about government and community programs, services, events and
issues. This use can include live broadcasts or tape delayed replays of meetings, pre-produced
videos on specific topics.
Public Access
Public access to cable television is perhaps the most complex part of the PEG components. In order
to fully meet the needs of the public, there must be opportunities for the community to receive
training in producing television programs,the ability to broadcast programs on a live basis and insert
tapes that has been produced earlier. There are important First Amendment issues concerning what
can be broadcast and, as a result, the potential for great liability on the part of any organization that
have oversight of program content. There are also administrative issues of scheduling the channel
• and integrating the demands of the public with the needs of the educational and governmental
agencies which also use the channel.
r
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION FIRE.DEPARTMENT PUBLIC W
595 Harbor Street 595 Harbor Street 715 Harbor Street 695 Harbor Street
HARBOR DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND BUILDING POLICE DEPARTMENT RECREATION AND PARKS
1275 Embarcadero 535 Harbor Street 850 Morro Bay Blvd. 1001 Kennedy Way
7
Benefits of PEG Access •
PEG access provides benefits to the community which are not available through commercial
television station like KSLO Channel 6, which is attempting to provide"community tv." It allows
for a diversity of expression and lets members of the public talk directly to one another. Service
agencies can speak to the community and local issues can be covered and discussed in depth rather
than the sound byte one may have on commercial television. PEG access also provides a forum for
cities to allow its constituents to participate more directly in the governmental process by televising
Council meetings and other important commission/board meetings. Finally, the educational
community will increasingly require access to the PEG channels, controlled by the City through its
franchise, in order to meet its distance learning needs.
Consortium for Community Media
In 1995, the Consortium for Community Media was formed by a number of governmental and
educational agencies in the County with a memorandum of understanding for the period June 1995
through June 1997. The Consortium was formed to determine whether it would be useful for the
region to partner in its efforts to make PEG a reality for San Luis Obispo County.
For the first phase,:the Consortium worked with-a consultant for over a year.and completed a
resource inventory/needs assessment and sponsored_a pilot project, Television to Inform the
Community(TIP),to demonstrate the possibilities available to local agencies through government
access.
The single most important conclusion derived from the work.done is that the Consortium believes
a"strategy of cooperation and collaboration on a county-wide, intersegmental basis will result in
a more cost effective, equitable deployment of technology and will help each agency achieve its
goals for lifelong learning and improved communications." Coordination with Consortium
members resources is key to developing a successful county-wide PEG access program that provides
for more diversified programming while not being a drain on an individual agency's finances.
The Consortium elected not to continue forward to explore county-wide PEG options, due to the
varying levels of interest in providing public access at this time; however, some agencies, such as
the County of San Luis Obispo, the City of Morro Bay and the City.of San Luis Obispo have a
greater need to move forward because of PEG provisions in their cable franchises and public interest
in making a channel available.
As a result,the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo are
moving ahead in their efforts to address the management issues of PEG access. Preliminary
discussions have even been held by the City of San Luis Obispo and the County with Cuesta College
and the San Luis Obispo county Office of Education,which are interested in utilizing PEG channels
as part of their distance learning plans. At the same time, members of the Consortium continue to
meet informally,as they believe that ultimately PEG access can best be served on a regional basis.
Thus, while these agencies are currently working separately, their proposed paths are parallel and
can easily be merged in the future. •
Joint Meeting of City Councils of San Luis Obispo County
Public, Education and Government(PEG)Access on Cable Television C?17
3
• Conceptual Framework for PEG Access in San Luis Obispo Count
In order to tie together all the pieces of PEG access and to address the significant funding,
administrative and liability issues it poses, the Consortium's consultant has proposed a conceptual
model. Although the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo and the County of San Luis Obispo
are working independently to address PEG access, as are a number of educational entities, all the
former members of the Consortium have endorsed this model.
The model relies on the establishment of a nonprofit access corporation which would be independent
from the cities and County and assume responsibility for all of the management of the access
channel(s)with the public, educational community and government entities as desired.
In the model, the cities and the County would contract with the nonprofit corporation for
management of the access channel(s).
1. The nonprofit would also: .
• Coordinate with educational institutions for providing training at its studio in
exchange for the County using its PEG equipment funding to upgrade the studio.
• Coordinate with another agency to be a central site for tape insertion.
• Establish scope of services that limits.operational subsidy from cities and County. .
• Establish and enforce public access policies and procedures, including those for
public use of the channel.
• Provide outreach to the public.
• Seek additional funding and resources to support public access.
2. Cities and the County would establish policies and program priorities for its own
governmental programming, but could contract with the public access corporation for
production services, including broadcasting of Council and perhaps some limited
commission/board meetings.
3. Educational agencies would establish policies and. procedures for their own agencies'
programming, but could contract with the access corporation for production services and
teacher and student training in video production.
Advantages and Disadvantages to the Nonprofit Model
One advantage to having a nonprofit corporation manage the PEG channel(s) is that access is the
nonprofit's sole mandate and focus. In addition,the corporation would be a neutral, third party with
a minimal amount of bureaucracy that allows for greater flexibility in raising funds. Lastly, having
the corporation manage the PEG channel(s)would provide the maximum protection against liability
for public access programming and First Amendment violations.
There are concerns, however,with regards to the accountability of a newly established and untested
nonprofit corporation that requires an investment of time and resources in planning and startup.
Also, the corporation would be vulnerable if it lacked support from City Councils, the Board of
Supervisors and the citizens.
Joint Meeting of City Councils of San Luis Obispo County
Public,.Education and Government(PEG)Access on Cable Television
4
Fiscal Impact
It is difficult to determine at this time what the fiscal impact of implementing a PEG access program
will be. The consultant notes that"no access corporation in the country is self-sufficient through
fees for service, contracts or traditional fundraising" alone and that "all rely on some level of
support from franchise fees, cable operator payments or some level of support from the franchising
authorities."
The consultant further states that"although ongoing operational budgets for nonprofit access centers
in California range from $20,000 to $500,000 a year, it is difficult for a center to operate on less
than$150,000 per year plus funds for equipment maintenance and replacement." This could be a
shared expense of all the participating agencies.
Concurrences
The County of San Luis Obispo and the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo have been
considering similar conceptual frameworks for public access and the other former members of the
Consortium are supportive of the nonprofit corporation model.
What Action is Requested of the Cities
The Consortium for Community Media memorandum of understanding expires June 30, 1997.
Some members of the Consortium believe that if there is an interest by the various educational
institutions and governmental agencies in developing a regional PEG access program using the
nonprofit corporation model, then the Consortium should continue with a more focused scope of •
work to make PEG access a reality for all of San Luis Obispo County.
The cities are requested Councils confer with its staff to determine if there is support this regional
concept for PEG access and support continuing the Consortium to achieve that task.
The Consortium will hold a meeting in July 1997 and all agencies supporting a regional approach
and willing to participate financially in the Consortium must attend to discuss a new memorandum
of understanding with a more focused scope of work that would become effective in July or August
1997.
Joint Meeting of City Councils of San Luis Obispo County
Public,Education and Government(PEG)Access on Cable Television
MAY-21-1997 11:36 THE JENCK.S LAW GP.OUP P.02%02
aom � .
MAY 2 1 MR
• 4�iAMIRL
J
AQMINISTRATI"r
CITY OF MORI✓n P:,!
Economic Vitality Corporation
of San Luis Obispo County May 21, 1997
Cathy Novak, Mayor
City of Morro Say
Morro Bay,CA 93442
Dear Mayor Novak.-
The
ovak:The Economic Vitality Corporation is pleased to accept your offer to speak before the intergovernmental
meeting of the units of local government in San Luis Obispo County scheduled for Thursday, June 5,
1997,7:00 p.m.at the Cliffs in Pismo Beach,CA.
Dr. Susan Cotler, Chairwoman, EVC Board of Directors will make the presentation. The fifteen minute
presentation will consist of an overview of the EVC Mission Statement and Goals and Objectives for the
upcoming fiscal year 1997-1998. In addition Dr. Cotler will update the units of local government on
accomplishments of this past year and the role/relationship of local governments and the EVC.
We look forward to meeting with you on the 50 of June.
Sincerely.
Gregg Goodwin
President,CEO
cc: Dr.Susan Cotler
V
P.O. Box 5257•San Luis Obispo■California 93403 •Phone: 805-782-9156•Fax: 805-781-6193
TOT01 P n)