HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 01/08/1998 nU31,IC REVIEW COPY
21ee.se do not remove.
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCILS AND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
(HOSTED BY THE CITY OFATASCADERO)
Thursday, January 8, 1998
6:00 p.m. — Social Hour
7:00 p.m. -Regular Session
Atascadero Lake Park Pavilion
9315 Pismo Ave.
Atascadero, California
"GENERAL INFORMATION"
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the Agenda are on
file in the office of the Atascadero City Clerk,6500 Palma Ave., Suite 208,Atascadero and are available for public
inspection during City Hall business hours.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting,please contact the Atascadero City Clerk's office(805461-5074). Notification at least 48 hours prior to
the meeting will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to
the meeting.
"SPECIAL MEETING PROTOCOL"
■ Atascadero Mayor,Harold L.Carden,III,will chair the meeting.
■ The business meeting will begin 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 16 minutes.
■ Due to the large number of City Councilmembers in attendance,Mayors and Councilmembers are respectfully
requested to limit their comments and/or questions to two minutes. If a Mayor or Councilmember wishes to be
recognized by the Chair,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 Carden will recognize each of the respective Mayors,
who in turn will put the item to a vote of his/her 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
present.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING: 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Carden
r
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Boy Scout Color Guard
1
ROLL CALL:
City_of Arroyo Grande City_ofAtascadero City_ofGrover Beach
Mayor A.K "Pete"Dougall Mayor Harold L. Carden, 111 Mayor Dee Santos
Michael Lady Ray Johnson Robert Reed
Michael Fuller George Luna Henry E. "Gene"Gates
Thomas A.Runels Jerry L. Clay,Sr. Peter Keith
Steve Tolley Kenneth Lerno Ronald Arnoldsen
City_of Morro Bay City of Paso Robles City_ofPismo Beach
Mayor Cathy Novak Mayor Duane J.Picanco Mayor John Brown
Rodger Anderson Tom Baron Marian Mellow
Dave Elliott Walter J. Macklin Hal Halldin
William Peirce Lee Swanson Bill Rabenaldt
Janice Peters Christian E.Inversen Mary Ann Reiss
City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo
Mayor Allen K Settle Chairwoman Ruth Barckett
Bill Roalman Harry L. Ovitt
Dave Romero Bud Laurent
Dodie Williams Peg Pinard
Kathy Smith Mike Ryan
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
COMMUNITY FORUM:
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wanting to address the City Councils and Board of Supervisors
on any matter not on this agenda and over which the Councils and Supervisors have jurisdiction. Speakers are
limited to two minutes per speaker with a total of 16 minutes. Please state your name and address for the record
before making your statement.
A. ACTION ITEMS:
I. A JOINT RESOLUTION URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR TO APPROVE RESTORING OF PROPERTY TAXES.
[Robert Reed, Councilmember of Grover Beach, will give background]
[Allen Settle, Mayor of San Luis Obispo, will give report and present resolution]
Recommendation: Approve Joint Resolution.
Time: 30 minutes
2. A JOINT RESOLUTION CONCERNING FEDERAL REGULATION
COORDINATION AND PERMITTING RELATIVE TO FLOOD PREVENTION.
[Allen Settle, Mayor of San Luis Obispo, will give report and present resolution]
Recommendation: Approve Joint Resolution.
Time: 30 minutes
2
3. A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITIES AND COUNTY SUPPORT IN
CONCEPT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO GAIN GREATER FISCAL
STABILITY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
[Cathy Novak, Mayor of Morro Bay, will give report]
Recommendations: 1. The Cities and County support in concept the constitutional
amendment.
2. Each City and County individually support,by resolution,the
final constitutional amendment package presented to the
Legislature.
Time: 30 minutes
B. INFORMATION ITEMS:
1. ELECTRIC INDUSTRY DE-REGULATION: AN INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING ON
OPTIONS FACING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
[Cathy Novak, Mayor of Morro Bay, will give information presentation]
[Allen Settle, Mayor of San Luis Obispo, will present request of aggregating possibilities]
Recommendation: City Managers explore all options and report back findings to all
Cities and County within four months.
Time: 30 minutes
ADJOURNMENT:
3
ITEM #A-1
MEMORANDUM
O
DATE: JANUARY, 1998
TO: JOINT CITY COUNCILS MEETING
FROM: BOB REED, CHAIRMAN, SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
COMMITTEE
On June 5, 1997 at a special joint meeting of all the City Councils in the region a resolution
proposed by the City of Grover Beach to explore placing a Y2 cent sales tax measure on the
November 1998 ballot to be used for street and road purposes was approved. A committee was
established consisting of one elected official and the Administrator from each City and the County.
The committee held a total of three meetings to review the options for additional funding for
transportation purposes, and made a determination at the last meeting not to proceed any further
on this issue at this time.
In the course of the three committee meetings all possible sources of supplemental revenue, and
related issues were reviewed by the committee. Following a detailed discussion of the options
and issues at the first meeting, the committee decided at its second meeting to focus in on an
increase in the sales tax in subsequent meetings. This decision was due to the limited potential
from most funding sources, and legal difficulties which could be expected from the other sources.
At its third (and last) meeting, the committee decided not to proceed with any further meetings to
seek an increase in the sales tax on a countywide basis at this time. This decision was made on
the basis of the understanding that the necessary circumstances to successfully proceed with an
election were not present, and due to the lack of participation by the County in the committee
deliberations.
The original decision to establish a committee to evaluate options for a countywide effort to
increase funding for local street and road purposes was based largely on the findings in a study
on Local Street and Road Maintenance Needs prepared by Council of Governments staff. This
study found that there is a significant backlog of road maintenance and rehabilitation needs, and
that current local revenues are not adequate to pay for all the needed work. Following are
summaries of the information presented at the three committee meetings.
Steering Committee Meeting#1 (August 21`�
Agenda - This meeting was focused on a general review of the problem of providing adequate
funding for local street and road maintenance, the legal requirements to increase funding, and
public attitudes and opinions.
Problem Definition -The "problem" is made up of two parts. The first is the estimated extent of
local street and road maintenance needs, and the second is the availability of funding to address
the need. The Countywide Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Needs report, presented to
the SLOCOG Board in June, 1997, showed that there is a $50 to $140 million "backlog" of
additional maintenance needed to bring local streets and roads up to"good" or"best' condition.
The committee reviewed the Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Streets and
Roads, compiled by the State Controllers Office in order to see how local jurisdictions using their
street and road funding. This report shows that for the four year period between Fiscal Year
91/92 and 94/95:
1
100001
ITEM #A-1
• A total of$81 million in expenditures was reported for all jurisdictions.
• Of that total, $47 million was for"maintenance" purposes.
• For FY 94/95 this report shows that over $10.8 million, about half of all funds made available
to all jurisdictions in the region was made available to the County of San Luis Obispo for street
and road purposes.
• The remainder, about$10 million, was divided up among the seven cities.
The committee reviewed several other tables on the uses of all Federal, State and local funding
sources. It was noted that:
• Of 35 sources of funds for transportation purposes, only twelve can be used for local street
and road purposes,
• Of those twelve only four can be used for road maintenance.
• Of these, two sources, gas tax subventions, and Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds, are allocated by formula from the State.
• The only other funding sources is the Surface Transportation Program (STP).
It was noted that of the $10.8 million in STP funds projected to be allocated to the region over the
six years of the next surface transportation act, $7.8 million (71%) will be allocated directly to the
cities and county, with the remaining $3 million (29%) to be allocated on a competitive basis. All
available funding was found to be maximized.
Legal Issues - The committee was presented with a review of the legal issues pertaining to an
increase in the sales tax or other tax. This included a review of the history of State legislation and
voter propositions since Proposition 13, that have limited the ability of local jurisdictions to
increase their taxes. These issues included Proposition 62 (1986), which established the
requirement for a two-thirds approval of the electorate for special taxes and majority for general
taxes, and the Guardino Decision of 1995 by the State Supreme Court which invalidated a sales
tax approved by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters in Santa Clara County in a 1992
election. The major conclusion drawn by the committee from this presentation was that a "special
tax" (proposed for a specific purpose) requires a two-thirds vote of approval and a "general tax"
which requires only a majority vote and which cannot identify a particular purpose.
Public Attitudes and Opinions - The committee was presented with a review of the results of
surveys taken by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in 1990 and one taken by the
Regional Rideshare Agency in 1997. The 1990 survey by Townsend & company was initiated
by the Council of Governments at a cost of $30,000. This survey was intended to provide
information on public attitudes toward a possible November, 1990 ballot measure proposing a
half cent increase in the sales tax to pay for a range of transportation system improvements
throughout the region. This survey found moderately strong public support for a variety of
possible projects, however the consultants advised against proceeding because it did not show
a sufficient level of support to assure passage based on their experience. Based on this
advice, the SLOCOG Board decided not to proceed with a ballot measure.
The 1997 survey by META Information Services was initiated by San Luis Obispo Regional
Ridesharing as a tracking survey of voter attitudes regarding various transit and ridesharing
programs as a follow-up to a similar survey in 1995.
2
060002
ITEM #A-1
These included transportation behaviors, interest in potential ridesharing services, and
formation of a transit district. For the 1997 survey, staff for the Region Transit Agency
(SLORTA) and the Council of Government were given an opportunity to add questions of
particular interest:to our agencies. Questions were included in the survey on potential support
for a sales tax increase.to pay for various transportation system improvements, including local
street and road maintenance.
Following are comparisons of major findings of these two surveys:
• The 1990 survey found that 52% of voters would support a '/2 cent sales tax increase
measure for important county projects (highway, road, transit and other types); the 1997
survey found that 60.7%would support such a measure.
• The 1990 survey found that 68% of the voters would support a 1/2 cent increase in the
sales tax to pay for road and highway improvements; the 1997 survey found that 59.4%
would support such a measure.
The 1990 survey found that 76% of the voters would support a half cent sales tax to pay for
street and road maintenance when it was part of a measure including a number of other kinds
of projects; the 1997 'survey found that 70.5% would be in favor of such a general purpose
measure if it funded a number of other project types. The 1997 survey also found that if a
special tax was proposed for only street and road repair and maintenance it would be supported
by 52.4%.
Steering Committee Meeting#2 (September 11')
Agenda - This meeting was focused on a more extensive and detailed review of the legal
requirements for increasing local revenue, statewide efforts to increase funding, and local and
regional options to increase funding.
Legal Requirements - The focus of discussion on legal issues for this meeting was an
explanation of Proposition 218 (1996), the Bradley-Bums Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law,
and the status of the Santa Clara County sales tax increase measure. The committee was
provided with excerpts from a publication of the State Legislative Analyst explaining the
proposition. It is clear from this analysis that the process of raising taxes is more difficult than
before, and that the two-thirds vote for a special tax is required.
Review of the Bradley-Bums Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law focused on the legal and
administrative constraints faced by individual cities seeking an increase in the sales tax. Further
discussion of the legal issues focused on the fact that the 1996 Santa Clara election was being
challenged in court.
County Counsel, Jac Crawford reviewed the issues associated with the court challenge of the
Santa Clara election, focusing on the legal differentiation between a general and special tax. He
urged the committee to take a "wait and see" attitude to seeking a countywide sales tax increase,
and recommended waiting until after the court makes a determination on the Santa Clara
challenge.
Statewide Efforts-This committee reviewed of a proposed ballot measure for the 1998 election
proposed by the California Caucus for Cities and Schools. For the measure to be placed on the
ballot 700,000 signatures must first be gathered. If approved, this initiative would give cities
and counties the option to redistribute up to one cent of the present sales tax from the state on
a per capita basis. This initiative is intended to replace funds taken by the state in recent years.
3
'>0000;
ITEM #A-1
The California Caucus initiative would do the following:
1. Allow the governing board of any city, city and county, or county, by adoption of an
ordinance by a two-thirds vote, propose to the voters a redistribution of existing sales tax
revenue.
2. Provide that the method of redistribution would be by a reduction of the state sales tax and
imposition of a local sales and use tax approved by a majority vote of the electorate.
3. Provide that the rate of the local tax would be allowed to reach either Y2% in increments of
one-tenth cent or one percent in increments of two-tenths cent over five years.
4. Require that no reduction in the state sales tax shall result in reduction in the amount of the
state's obligation to schools.
5. Require the state to continue to meet its funding obligations according to the State
Constitution without affecting the revenue received by cities and counties from state and
local taxes.
6. Require that the provisions of the act be liberally construed to enable its purpose of
providing voters with the option to redistribute sales and use taxes from the state to local
government on a per capita basis to augment existing revenues.
Local & Regional Options
The committee reviewed summaries of various options which could be pursued to increase
funding, including: the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT); Local Option Gas Tax; Countywide Sales
Tax; and Assessment Districts.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - The committee reviewed excerpts from the SLOCOG 1997
Regional Profile which showed the amounts and distribution of revenue for jurisdictions in the
region from 1985 through 1996. It was noted that in Fiscal Year 95/96 a total of$10.4 million in
revenue was generated from all jurisdictions in the region. If in FY 95/96 all jurisdictions in the
region had increased their tax to 10% Arroyo Grande would have had a 3.5% share of the TOT
collected in the region and revenues would have increased by more than $153,000 to a total of
$383,230; Atascadero would have increase its share by a tenth of a percent and would have
collected nearly $120,000 more in revenue; and the County would have increased its share by
nearly 1.6% and captured nearly$300,000 more in revenue.
Local Option Gas Tax-The committee reviewed an analysis of this option. Such an increase is
considered a special tax, requiring a two-thirds vote of the electorate for approval. No such
increase has every succeeded.
In addition, a bill (AB 595, Brown) has been introduced in the State Legislature which would
authorize the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to seek a 10 cent increase in the
gas tax for imposition in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. California currently imposes
an excise (gas) tax of 18 cents per gallon on fuel used in highway vehicles. In addition, the
Federal fuel tax is 18.3 cents per gallon, for a total of 36.3 cents per gallon.
It was noted that a one cent increase in the tax would annually produce a total of $1,196,000.
By comparison, a half cent increase in the sales tax is estimated to annually produce a total of
about $11 million annually. The gas tax would have to be increased by 9 cents to produce the
same amount of revenue as a half cent increase in the sales tax.
4
))0004
ITEM #A-1
Countywide Sales Tax Measure - The committee was presented with a detailed review of the
options and issues associated with attempting to seek an increase in the sales tax as either a
general or special tax. Key points are as follows:
• Between 1984 and 1990 the voters of nineteen counties approved sales tax increase
measures for transportation purposes. Of these, fifteen were approved with less that a two-
thirds vote.
• In 1986, Proposition 62 was approved by the voters; it required a two-thirds voter approval
for special taxes and a majority vote for general taxes.
• In 1987 SB142 (Deddeh) enacted the Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act
which authorized any county board of supervisors to create or designate a local
transportation authority, and authorized it to impose a retail sales tax of up to 1% with a two-
thirds vote of the authority and subsequent approval of a majority of the voters.
• The issue of majority versus two-thirds vote for special taxes was further clarified in 1995,
when the State Supreme Court, in the Guardino decision, invalidated a sales tax approved
by a majority but less than two-thirds of the voters in Santa Clara County in a 1992 election.
• In 1996, Santa Clara County successfully received voter approval of a .5 % increase in the
local sales tax for general purposes(a major portion of which is likely to be expended on
transportation system maintenance and improvements based on the results of the
companion advisory measure):
a) The Santa Clara County strategy included two complimentary measures (A & B), the
first of which was an "advisory expenditure plan", and the second which actually raised
the sales tux by .5%.
b) Measure A, the advisory expenditure plan, won by 73%; Measure B, which raised the
sales tax by .5 % for general purposes passed by 52%.
c) The Santa Clara measures were presented to the voters without an "official' promise
linking the two measures, thereby minimizing the possibility of successful legal
challenges based on state law concerning imposition of special taxes.
d) The sales tax increase measure has been challenged and a decision is expected by
May, 1998
Assessment Districts -Tom Sullivan, Grover Beach Interim City Manager, reviewed establishing
a countywide assessment district for local street and road maintenance. He noted that
Proposition 218 made this option much more difficult, and noted that other difficulties with
preparation of cost estimates makes it impractical for application on a countywide basis for street
and road maintenance. He recommended against further evaluation of this option. The
committee agreed not to pursue it at this time. Mayor Cathy Novak of Morro Bay motioned to
focus on the local option sales tax and the return of the state sales tax as proposed in the
proposition by the California Caucus for Cities and Schools at a future meeting; seconded by
Mayor Pete Dougall of Arroyo Grande and approved.
Steering Committee Meeting#3 (October 23rd) Final Meeting
Agenda - The focus of this meeting included: a review the results of the first two committee
meetings; the final status of relevant State legislation; conduct a telephone conference call with
5
');J000
ITEM #A-1
Max Besler, a principal with a major public relations firm which has managed the development
and promotion of several significant sales tax.measures throughout the state of California; and
determine a course of action. Committee delegates from four of the seven cities in the region
were present, including: Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, and San Luis Obispo.
Telephone Conference - Staff arranged for a teleconference to provide the committee
members with the professional perspective of a private consultant on the process of carrying
out a sales tax measure campaign, and the likelihood of success. Committee staff reviewed the
work Mr. Besler had done for Santa Clara County on their last successful sales tax increase
measure. The committee was presented with what Mr. Besler had previously identified as the
necessary components of a successful sales tax increase campaign, including: the participation
and support of-the County Board of Supervisors; a public opinion survey: establishment of a
private sector supportgroup with funding; and adequate funding to carry out a campaign. The
committee discussedthe likelihood of successfully putting all the necessary components
together, and by consensus decided it would not be necessary to hold the conference call at
this time.
Board of Supervisors Representation - Committee Chairman Bob Reed explained that he
had sent a letter to Supervisor Ruth Brackett requesting a representative to the committee,
However, the Board expressed no interest in pursuing the proposed sales tax measure.
Legal & Legislative Update - The committee received an update on Assembly Bill 1362, on
local government finance, which, if it had not been vetoed by the Governor, would have made
the decision of the State Supreme Court in the Guardino Decision inapplicable to any tax first
imposed by an ordinance or resolution adopted prior to December 14, 1995. The committee
also received a presentation on the status of the appeal of the Santa Clara County sales tax
measure. It was noted that the Santa Clara County Counsel had informed staff that they were
very optimistic about the chances of the committee to succeed in the matter.
Revenues & Expenditures - Staff reviewed information from a study by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project (STPP) which indicated that four times as much money is spent
annually nationwide to repair vehicles damaged by potholes then is spent to fix roads. It was
further noted that the study found that since the growth in the sale of motor vehicle fuels
(gallons) is essentially flat, the tax on fuel would have to be increased by 30 cents per gallon to
produce revenue equal to the equivalent amount in 1967.
Determine Course of Action - Committee Chairman Bob Reed stated that in his opinion the
committee should go back to the (original) idea of pursuing a half-cent sales tax increase for
transportation purposes. He noted that the voters should be given the opportunity to approve
the measure or not. Such an action would still require the support of the Board of Supervisors
to move forward however. Atascadero Mayor Johnson noted that the committee did not
appear to have the support of all seven cities in order to go to the Board of Supervisors, and
suggested taking_ the matter back to the next Mayor's meeting for more discussion. A
suggestion was made to have a delegation of the committee meet with Board Chair Ruth
Brackett to seek a firm position on the sales tax measure. The committee discussed several
other issues of concern that would have to be considered in pursuing a sales tax measure. A
consensus of the committee was then reached to bring up the issue at the next mayor's
meeting to see if their was a consensus to take the issue to the Board of Supervisors.
The meeting was then adjourned.
Notes prepared by Mike Harmon, Associate Transportation Planner assigned to staff the
Committee.
6
')00006
ITEM #A-1
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AND THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS URGING THE STATE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR TO APPROVE
RESTORING PROPERTY TAXES PREVIOUSLY TAKEN
AWAY FROM THE CITIES AND COUNTIES AND AUTHORIZING
RESTORED PROPERTY TAXES TO BE USED FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT NEEDS SUCH AS PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC WORKS
WHEREAS, the State of California, in order to deal with their own budgetary shortfalls,
took property tax revenue away from general purpose local government units (counties and
cities) in fiscal years 1992 through 1994, and
WHEREAS, since that time most units of local government have had a very difficult time
delivering services to their citizens, including public safety and building and maintaining needed
public facilities because of this loss of revenue, and
WHEREAS, most local government jurisdictions have also had a very difficult time
constructing and maintaining their street and road systems due to insufficient funding for this
. purpose, and
WHEREAS,most units of local government have had to use available general funds for
critically needed public services such as police and fire, which has resulted in the neglect of
maintaining our public facilities and infrastructure and, in doing so,has contributed to a
deteriorated condition of our streets and roads, and
WHEREAS, units of California local government will continue to see the further
deterioration of their facilities and infrastructure and,particularly, streets and roads, unless
additional funds are made available for this purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the cities of San Luis
Obispo County and the County Board of Supervisors that we urge the Governor and the
Legislature of the State of California to move forthrightly and expeditiously to restore property
taxes previously taken from the cities and counties to meet local needs such as public safety and
public works construction and maintenance, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Councils and the Board of Supervisors of
San Luis Obispo County believe this matter is of great urgency for the units of local government
and is of the highest public interest both to people residing within cities and counties and,
therefore,to the citizens of the State of California.
')00007
ITEM #A-1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County
at a special joint meeting held on the day of , 1998.
Chairperson,Board of Supervisors
San Luis Obispo County
Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
ATTEST:
City Clerk
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
-u0006
ITEM #A-2
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE
C TY COUNCILS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
D THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
URGING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS LO AL AGENCIES MUST FOLLOW TO OBTAIN PERMITS TO
CONSTRU T IMPROVEMENTS TO REPAIR DAMAGE CAUSED BY
DISASTROUS FLOODING AND TO PROTECT IMPROVED AND
UNIMPR VED WATERWAYS FROM FUTURE FLOOD DAMAGE.
WHEREAS, the Federal Government has adopted the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and
WHEREAS,the Federal Government did thereby assume regulatory authority
over placement of fill and excavation of material from within all waterways and wetlands
and protection of biological organisms living within the waterways and wetlands, and
WHEREAS,the Federal Government has defined all work to, in, on or within
those waterways End wetlands to be under their jurisdiction, and
WHERE S,local agencies are thus required to obtain permission of the Federal
Government prior to addressing the needs of their citizens, and
WHERE S,the Federal Government has spread the implementation of the
National Environmental Policy and Endangered Species Acts among a myriad of
agencies and under a myriad of regulations, and
WHEREAS,the Federal Government has established the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Commerce and assignment them the responsibility to
protect certain wi d life, and
WHEREAS,the Department of the Interior has not established guidelines, for its
assigned area of r sponsibility,that allow the local agency to address the needs of its
citizens, and
WHERE S,the Department of Commerce has not established guidelines, for its
assigned area of r sponsibility,that allow the local agency to address the needs of its
citizens, and
)00010
ITEM #A-2
WHERE S,the Department of Army is given authority to issue permits prior to
any dredging or filling in waterways or wetlands, and has adopted certain Nationwide
Permits, and
WHERE S,the Department of the Army has the freedom to not issue permits
following their own Nationwide Permit system, even though that might be internally
consistent in its iriplementation of regulations under its authority, and
WHERE LS, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to direct the
Department of the Army to restrict or reject a permit application, and
WHERE S,the current practice of issuing permits has not been effective in
either protecting tie environment or the citizens within urban areas due to internal
Federal inconsistencies, missing communication, and non-existent coordination, and
WHERE S,local agencies must prepare plans, conduct environmental studies
and hearings to m.-et the already strict requirements of the State of California regarding
protection of the environment, and
WHEREAS,the local agency, with clear, concise Federal guidelines and adopted
standards from the State of California, via its permitting process, could enforce the
Federal regulatiot s thus enhancing the process and eliminating the confusion and
frustration created by multiple Federal permitting agencies, and
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the cities of
San Luis Obispo ounty and the County Board of Supervisors that we urge the President
and the Congress Df the United States of America to move forthrightly and expeditiously
to simplify the process of permitting the work necessary in lakes, creeks, waterways, and
wetlands by direc ing the agencies to adopt fair and equitable standards for use in
California and delegate authority to the local agencies and to the State of California to
follow those reasonable standards in the process of meeting the needs of their citizens in a
way similar to the process the Department of Transportation established for
implementation o the ISTEA program for the construction and maintenance of highways.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Councils and the Board of
Supervisors of San Luis Obispo County believe this matter is of great urgency for the
11 X60013
ITEM #A-2
units of local government and is of the highest public interest both to people residing
within cities and c unties and therefore,to the citizens of the United States.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis
Obispo County at a special joint meeting held on the day of ,
1998.
Chairperson,Board of Supervisors
San Luis Obispo County
ATTEST:
Clerk
Mayor, City of Arroyo Grande
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Atascadero
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Grover Beach
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Morro Bay g 2
ITEM #A-2
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
),jOO13
ITEM #A-3
v.
City of Morro Bay
,:..,:,r "T •� MOR 93442
RO BAY CALIFORNIA
805-772-6200
i
y n ,.iy �y�. +��� cs •�••�- -_ _ _�+•'-� is _ V",
r, 1 .-r' ,e^ ^-- `` _lam• � ..r - —'
Jointan Luis Obispo Cities and County Meeting Report
Date: December 1, 1997
To: All City Councils and Board of Supervisors
From: Mayor Cat y Novak
DISCUSSION
Currently the Leagut of California Cities is working on a proposal to expand its efforts to
"protect, restore anc reform" city financing. Included in this legislative package is a
constitutional amendr ient to protect government revenues from further state take-away.
AsY ou recall, the State began in 1992 with the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) which took away money away from cities to give to the schools. The state has
continually imposed dostly mandates and diverted funds from local government. With the ever-
increasing difficulties in providing a balanced budget and revenue for community services it has
become necessary to pursue legislative efforts to prevent further diversion and manipulation of
local government funds.
Attached for your re iew, is a draft constitutional amendment entitled "Right to Local Fiscal
Stability Act." At the time of this writing the League of California Cities Board has not made a
final decision on the title of the amendment nor all the proposed language. The Board expects to
have a final document by the end of this year. It will then be presented to the Legislature for
their consideration in January 1998. A constitutional amendment requires a two/thirds vote of
both houses and if passed will be on the November 1998 ballot. A 50 percent voter approval is
then required for passage.
Specifically, the measure would include:
(1)
• Determine that the power to tax from the Constitution, not state legislation, and that only
local government agency and its electorate can levy, modify, re-allocate and/or revise local
. taxes and other local revenue sources.
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS
595 Harbor Street 59S Harbor Street 715 Harbor Street 695 Harbor Street
HARBOR DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND BUILDING POLICE DEPARTMENT RECREATION AND PARKS
1 275 Embarcadero 535 Harbor Street 850 Morro Bay Blvd. 1001 Kennedy Way
ITEM #A-3
• • Strengthen local overnments' protection from unfunded mandates by requiring the state to
pay for state programs with state funds.
• Ensure citizens ai e provided with timely information on how these protected local funds are
spent.
(2)
• Continue to figh for the return of ERAF money by applying pressure on the Legislature to
return at least so ne portion of the money taken in the past. Particularly fines and forfeitures
revenue which y elds an estimated$62 million for cities.
(3)
• Establish a joint city-county authority to increase sales tax. The state has granted the
counties the aut ority to seek local voter approval to increase countywide sales tax.
However, the citi s would not share in the authority and would not benefit directly from the
increase. The g al is to provide cities with an option for additional local revenue and
promote cooperation among cities and their respective counties.
This constitutional endment contains language at this time that may not receive support from
a majority of cities. The League Board is diligently working on developing language that will
accomplish the ultimate goal of preventing a future siphoning of local funds to the state level.
This is a complex and politically charged issue and is the first of many steps in a long journey.
I will continue to ke in contact with the League and provide the cities and county with updated
information. Upon r ceipt of the final constitutional amendment language, I will draft a sample
resolution for the in ividual councils and board consideration. I would urge all of us to closely
monitor and support the effort of the League as this proposal advances through the Legislative
process.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Cities and County support in concept the constitutional amendment to gain greater
fiscal stability f6j,local government.
2. Each City and County individually support, by resolution,the final constitutional amendment
package presente J to the Legislature.
•
2
')00015
ITEM #A-3
October 7, 1997
Right to Local Fiscal Stability Act
SECTION 1. The eople of California declare as follows:
(a) This Constitution emphasizes the importance of local control of local
government fiscal decisions. For example, Articles XIIIC and XIIID adopted by
Proposition 218, gave taxpayers a greater role in determining whether or not local
taxes for local programs should be imposed, repealed or reduced.
(b) However, in re ent years, the State Legislature has diverted revenues from cities
and counties to cope with the State's budgetary problems. The State Legislature
should not be allowed to frustrate the intent of local voters by appropriating local
revenues for State purposes.
(c) In enacting th a constitutional changes, the voters intend to ensure that local
revenues are available for essential city and county services. The State is
prohibited, therefore from shifting its financial obligations and problems to cities
and counties by reducing or redirecting local revenues or by requiring cities and
counties to enact and collect fees to pay for State programs.
(d) Since educating our communities' children is a Constitutional priority in
California, fiscal autonomy for cities and counties must be achieved in a manner
which does not take money away from schools.
(e) The public further intends to strengthen and clarify this Constitution's
prohibition against unfunded mandates on local governments.
(f) This amendment to the California Constitution shall be known as 'The Right to
Local Fiscal Stability Act'.
SECTION 2. Secti n 1(a) of Article XIIIA of the Constitution is amended to read as
follows:
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed
One percent (1%) o the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to
be collected by the :ounties and apportioned according to law to the districts within
the counties. For purposes of the apportionment to cities and counties, "according
to law" shall mean according to Article XIIIA, section 5.
00016
ITEM #A-3
SECTION 3. Section 5 is added to Article XIIIA of the Constitution to read as
follows:
Sec. 5. Apportionment of property tax to cities and counties.
(a) Except as provia ed in subsection (b), beginning in fiscal year 1998-1999 and in
each subsequent fiscal year, the revenue from the ad valorem tax on real property
shall be apportioned to cities and counties in accordance with the law in :effect on
the date the Right tc Local Fiscal Stability Act takes effect.
(b) The proportiona e share of the property tax received by cities and counties as
provided in Section 5(a), may,be modified in accordance with:
(i) a local determination made as part of a change of organization (including an
incorporation, anne ation, detachment, consolidation, disincorporation or
dissolution);
(ii) Article XVI, section 16 of this Constitution;
(iii) the repayment or restoration 'of revenue from the ad valorem tax, on real
property to cities, counties, or cities and counties previously shifted between local
governments and schools by the State Legislature;
(iv) a local reappo tionment approved by majority votes of the electorates of a
majority of the cities and counties affected by the reapportionment representing a
majority of the population. For purposes of this subdivision the population of a
county shall mean the population of the unincorporated areas of that county.
(c) The State Legislature may not reduce or redirect property tax revenues
apportioned to cities and counties pursuant to this section, either directly or
indirectly.
SECTION 4. Section 24 of Article XIII is amended to read as follows:
(a) The Legislature may not impose taxes for local purposes but may authorize 1 �
governments to impose them Money appropriated from state funds to a local
government for its local purposes may be used as provided by law. Money
subvened, to a local government under Section 25 may be used for State or local
purposes.
(b) The power to impose any general and special tax is vested in each city county
and city and county, but the people reserve to themselves the power to approve or
disapprove such taxes in accordance with Articles XIIIA, XIIIC and XIIID of this
Constitution.
(c) The power to impose general and special taxes vested in each city, county and
city and county is s bject to the will of the voters of the city, county or city and
county is not subject to amendment, repeal or modification by the State Legislature.
')0()017
E
ITEM #A-3
(d) The State Leg'slature shall not reduce or. redirect the revenues raised by general
or special taxes imposed by a city, county or city and county.
(e) The purpose oJ this section is to state clearly that the power to govern locally
means little without the coordinate power to tax locally, subject to the voter
approval requirements of Articles XIIIA, XIIIC, and XIIID of this Constitution.
Therefore,
(i) the power of ny city, county, or city and county to impose any type of general or
special tax shall not yield to a conflicting general law or to a matter of statewide
concern if the tax is a type that had been lawfully imposed prior to the effective date
of the Right to Local Fiscal Stability Act. Such taxes shall include, but not be limited
to, utility users taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and business license taxes. The fiscal
authority guarante d by this paragraph (e)(i) shall extend to all cities, counties and
cities and counties whether or not any particular local government had imposed
such a tax, so Ion as any local government had done so.
(ii) As to taxes of a type first imposed by a city, county or city and county after the
date referenced in paragraph (e)(i),. such taxes shall only yield to a conflicting general
law or a matter o statewide concern when subordinating the local tax to State
legislation that is consistent with the purposes of the Right to Local Fiscal Stability
Act as stated in sections 1, 6, and 7 of that Act.
(f) This Section 21 does not authorize a city, county or city and county to impose a
tax which has been determined to be preempted by State legislation, such as a
tippler's tax, a tobacco tax or a tax on savings and loans.
SECTIONS. Section 29 of Article XIII is amended to read as follows:
(a) The portion o the sales and use tax that is distributed to cities, counties and
cities and counties, and the additional authority granted to cities, counties and cities
and counties .to increase the sales tax rates pursuant to law in effect on the date the
Right to Local Fiscal Stability Act takes effect, shall be vested in each city, county and
city and county.
(b) The State Legislature shall neither reduce nor redirect the revenues raised by
any sales and use tax the revenues or authority for which is vested in cities,
counties, and citie3 and counties by section 29(a).
(c) Any action o the State Legislature which broadens the base of the sales and use
tax or otherwise fnhances the revenues collected from this tax shall apply to the
portion of the sale5 and use tax described in Section 29(a).
(d) The Legislature may authorize Counties; cities and counties and cities may enter
into contracts to apportion between or among them the revenue derived from any
• sales or use taxi posed by them which is collected for them by the State. Before any
authorized b a majority of those voting
such contract becomes operative, it shall be y � y g
on the question in each jurisdiction at a general or direct primary election.
)00018
ITEM #r`A-3
SECTION 6. Subsection (d) is added to Section 6 of Article XIIIB to read as follows:
(d) This section sha 1 be enforced by the courts so that the Legislature may not, by
any means, undermi e the goals of this section, Article XIIIA, section 5, Article XIII,
section 24, and Article XIII, section 29, of establishing local financial self-
determination and o requiring the State to pay for State programs with State
revenues. An action by the State which shifts responsibility to fund a service or
program from a Sta e agency to a local government or from one local government
to another, shall be construed as an action to undermine the goal of these sections,
unless the Legislature (i) provides a subvention of funds to reimburse the affected
local government for the full direct and indirect cost of such program or (ii) obtains
the consent of the affected local government.
SECTION 7. This ineasure shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of
enhancing local financial self-determination and reducing State influence in local
fiscal affairs.
SECTION 8. The p ovisions of this measure are severable. If any provision of this
measure, or the application of this measure to any person or circumstances, is held
to be invalid or in conflict with another measure which is approved by more voters
at the same election the remainder of this measures shall be effective. In the event
the conflicting ballo measure is later held invalid, it is the voters' intent that this
measure be reinstat d and given the full force of law.
J v 1. 019
ITEM #B-1
-�
city of Morro Bay
MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA 93442
:y zs 805 772-6200
�/_ ��"�/� .�. ^+/.' .- ry_'.,'^ ~ '� T 'i:.tier T' r'.�� ^/+ x'f:17.�•R'r•/a ..� 'n.;,�
Joint San Luis Obispo Cities and County Meeting Report
Date: December 9, 1997
To: All City Councils in San Luis Obispo County
d County Board of Supervisors
From: Morro Bay Mayor Cathy Novak
DISCUSSION
Just over a year ago, the California Legislature unanimously passed AB 1890 which
represents Cali rnia's attempt to restructure the electrical utility businesses as we now
see them. Janu ry 1, 1998 will begin the new era of electric energy deregulation as the
law created by AB 1890 goes into effect.
Until now, ele rical services have traditionally been provided by a single company;
however, under the new law energy consumers will have the ability to choose their own
energy provider. The ultimate goal of deregulation is to provide reduced rates to all
consumers.
Presently, all San Luis Obispo consumers including local government facilities are
provided electrit power from PG&E. At this time, the County of San Luis Obispo is
exploring optior s through an RFP process to determine if an electrical rate reduction for
their facilities hl feasible. The incorporated City's in San Luis Obispo County should
additionally explore the same concept. At this time, we should consolidate our efforts
and work towards a beneficial plan that would encompass potential savings for all
taxpayers in our County.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City M agers and County Administrator collectively do the following:
1. Explore ill options to purchase electricity from a qualified service provider for
local government facilities;
2. Provide options on how best to implement such a plan;
3. Provide 1 vel of net savings for each jurisdiction; and
• 4. Report b ck findings to all Cities and County within four months.
1 v 11:_i.i
FINANCE ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS
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