Loading...
CC 2020-09-22_11a Supplemental No 1 MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER JESSICA MATSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM 11.a – SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF TOP 10 COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk City Website (or public review binder) From:James Guthrie To:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George Cc:Kelly Wetmore Subject:Fwd: Item 11a - correction Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 4:34:33 PM Note the change to the SWAG est. for fund balance: from 4 to 3 million, yes I added instead of subtracted the reduced revenue. Jim Begin forwarded message: From: James Guthrie < Subject: Item 11a Date: September 21, 2020 at 3:58:42 PM PDT To: Caren Ray <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>, Kristen Barneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>, City Jimmy Paulding <jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>, Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>, Lan George <lgeorge@arroyogrande.org> Cc: Kelly Wetmore <kwetmore@arroyogrande.org> Mayor and Council: Over the last couple of months, I have spent some time reviewing the Local Sales Tax reports and have a few observations. First, it would be a more useful document if it came out a couple of months later when the actuals for the prior fiscal year are known. The impression to a casual reader is that those capital projects listed were completed when normally, less than half are. For example, of 2018-19 budgeted expenditures were 4.1 million but the actual was only $850,000. There is an estimated 900,000 fund balance forecast for 2019-20. I suspect that expenditures during Covid like income will be down as well. Part of this may be due to paying the prior year's pavement management expense for work completed before 6/30 but paid after the fiscal year ends, but this should average out or be accounted for. It is also possible that the allocated amounts have been set aside to save up for a project*. I have always thought that was what we were doing for the police firing range remediation but it is not indicated in the report. By my SWAG estimate there will be a 3 million fund balance in the Local Sales tax fund at the end of 2019-20 fiscal year and that includes a $500,000 (25%) reduction in revenue. I think the problem is that the local sales tax budget is treated as a wish list that allocates all funding without and any comprehensive analysis of what could actually be accomplished in the given year or strategic analysis of what would be the best investment of the limited funds available. You may remember several years ago, when we decided to spend 5 million to paydown our pension liability, based on a 8% return, I asked what return on investment we would receive if instead we paid down our deferred road maintenance. I finally got an answer in a response to Council Members Barneich’s question on what the impact of waiting to enact the Sales Tax measure would be. Here’s the operative quote “A $1 million dollar project will cost $2 million due to the 3 year postponement.”**. I figure this to be a 25% - 35% return on investment So finally, to tonight's agenda: I would like to see a top 10 priority to establish the Local Sales tax fund availability based on the same income criteria for the general fund budget, review the list of potential projects to determine if they could be accomplished in this fiscal year, and then an analysis which would produce the best return on investment. I think it will be clear that deferred maintenance will top the list and should be expanded over its current levels, even if we can’t fund at this level every year in the future. In fact, there may be a good argument for borrowing to accomplish the most pressing if not all of the deferred road maintenance. The cost of borrowing will never be lower and the 5-year window for inflation doesn't look good. I would also, like to see a review of the Brisco project sooner than February 2021, if only to establish what the council would need to a make an informed decision, ie. what is the funding plan for a range of estimated costs and how do the new state mandated changes to the General Plan regarding vehicle miles traveled vs level of service, effect the current and future impacts at Brisco, with and without the new interchange? Is the current Castillo Del Mar plan is consistent with the new circulation element? What is the time frame for this list of priorities? Thanks Jim Guthrie *I am referencing an actual set aside fund not the reallocation of prior year funding as is identified in the Castillo Del Mar item #8K **Here is the whole quote Q-If we had to put off for two years due to the impacts of our residents/ biz owners from Covid. Can you tell me about any infrastructure projects that are pretty dire that we could put off or that would be not serviceable? · We can put off all of our projects – the questions in how much will this cost? See the “Streets” section below this to get a feel for $$ but in general each year we wait it adds about $1 million versus if we could address our poor condition streets in the near term.. · Next streets project is the overlay, ADA curb ramps and new striping on James Way – approx. $1.5 million project. · The over lay is another structural component that is intended to protect (and extend the life for about 15 years) the dig outs that were done 2 years ago. · We are seeing other streets that pressuring project priority due to worsening conditions. Streets: several residential streets such as Equestrian, Pecan, Stevenson, Via Diamante, Woodland will continue to degrade more and be more costly to fix. Rancho Parkway, parts of Brisco, Halcyon, Elm and Fair Oaks are going into the low 50 PCI range. · A 3 year waiting period is a realistic time frame because the ballot measure is uncertain and we will not be able to plan/schedule (project scope, engineering, design, contractor bids) based on that uncertainty. · Our data and evaluations show that we need about $3 million to have our PCI trend towards 69-70 over a 10 year period. We are at a 62 now, each year the PCI reduces about 2 to 3 points – so a 7 point reduction for example, will take us down to 55. A 55 PCI takes us down to the low “Fair” condition range and close to poor overall. In this range we are still in “reactive maintenance” and the increase in street repairs per square foot goes up from about $3.00 per sq ft to $5.00 to $6.00. A $1 million dollar project will cost $2 million due to the 3 year postponement. · Over the 3 year period we will pay about $2 to 3 million more in street repairs when the time comes that we can actually set the repairs projects for those streets because of the worsening and expanding conditions. From:James Guthrie To:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George Cc:Kelly Wetmore Subject:Item 11a Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 3:59:00 PM Mayor and Council: Over the last couple of months, I have spent some time reviewing the Local Sales Tax reports and have a few observations. First, it would be a more useful document if it came out a couple of months later when the actuals for the prior fiscal year are known. The impression to a casual reader is that those capital projects listed were completed when normally, less than half are. For example, of 2018-19 budgeted expenditures were 4.1 million but the actual was only $850,000. There is an estimated 900,000 fund balance forecast for 2019-20. I suspect that expenditures during Covid like income will be down as well. Part of this may be due to paying the prior year's pavement management expense for work completed before 6/30 but paid after the fiscal year ends, but this should average out or be accounted for. It is also possible that the allocated amounts have been set aside to save up for a project*. I have always thought that was what we were doing for the police firing range remediation but it is not indicated in the report. By my SWAG estimate there will be a 4 million fund balance in the Local Sales tax fund at the end of 2019-20 fiscal year and that includes a $500,000 (25%) reduction in revenue. I think the problem is that the local sales tax budget is treated as a wish list that allocates all funding without and any comprehensive analysis of what could actually be accomplished in the given year or strategic analysis of what would be the best investment of the limited funds available. You may remember several years ago, when we decided to spend 5 million to paydown our pension liability, based on a 8% return, I asked what return on investment we would receive if instead we paid down our deferred road maintenance. I finally got an answer in a response to Council Members Barneich’s question on what the impact of waiting to enact the Sales Tax measure would be. Here’s the operative quote “A $1 million dollar project will cost $2 million due to the 3 year postponement.”**. I figure this to be a 25% - 35% return on investment So finally, to tonight's agenda: I would like to see a top 10 priority to establish the Local Sales tax fund availability based on the same income criteria for the general fund budget, review the list of potential projects to determine if they could be accomplished in this fiscal year, and then an analysis which would produce the best return on investment. I think it will be clear that deferred maintenance will top the list and should be expanded over its current levels, even if we can’t fund at this level every year in the future. In fact, there may be a good argument for borrowing to accomplish the most pressing if not all of the deferred road maintenance. The cost of borrowing will never be lower and the 5-year window for inflation doesn't look good. I would also, like to see a review of the Brisco project sooner than February 2021, if only to establish what the council would need to a make an informed decision, ie. what is the funding plan for a range of estimated costs and how do the new state mandated changes to the General Plan regarding vehicle miles traveled vs level of service, effect the current and future impacts at Brisco, with and without the new interchange? Is the current Castillo Del Mar plan is consistent with the new circulation element? What is the time frame for this list of priorities? Thanks Jim Guthrie *I am referencing an actual set aside fund not the reallocation of prior year funding as is identified in the Castillo Del Mar item #8K **Here is the whole quote Q-If we had to put off for two years due to the impacts of our residents/ biz owners from Covid. Can you tell me about any infrastructure projects that are pretty dire that we could put off or that would be not serviceable? · We can put off all of our projects – the questions in how much will this cost? See the “Streets” section below this to get a feel for $$ but in general each year we wait it adds about $1 million versus if we could address our poor condition streets in the near term.. · Next streets project is the overlay, ADA curb ramps and new striping on James Way – approx. $1.5 million project. · The over lay is another structural component that is intended to protect (and extend the life for about 15 years) the dig outs that were done 2 years ago. · We are seeing other streets that pressuring project priority due to worsening conditions. Streets: several residential streets such as Equestrian, Pecan, Stevenson, Via Diamante, Woodland will continue to degrade more and be more costly to fix. Rancho Parkway, parts of Brisco, Halcyon, Elm and Fair Oaks are going into the low 50 PCI range. · A 3 year waiting period is a realistic time frame because the ballot measure is uncertain and we will not be able to plan/schedule (project scope, engineering, design, contractor bids) based on that uncertainty. · Our data and evaluations show that we need about $3 million to have our PCI trend towards 69-70 over a 10 year period. We are at a 62 now, each year the PCI reduces about 2 to 3 points – so a 7 point reduction for example, will take us down to 55. A 55 PCI takes us down to the low “Fair” condition range and close to poor overall. In this range we are still in “reactive maintenance” and the increase in street repairs per square foot goes up from about $3.00 per sq ft to $5.00 to $6.00. A $1 million dollar project will cost $2 million due to the 3 year postponement. · Over the 3 year period we will pay about $2 to 3 million more in street repairs when the time comes that we can actually set the repairs projects for those streets because of the worsening and expanding conditions. From:Kevin Buchanan To:public comment; Kristen Barneich; Lan George; Caren Ray Russom; Whitney McDonald; Keith Storton; Jimmy Paulding Subject:Item 11.a, 2020-21 Council Priorities Date:Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:45:49 PM Councilmembers and Staff, I'm writing to express my general support for the proposed list of council priorities for fiscal year 2020-21. I'd like to further highlight some specifics that would ideally be addressed within the implementation of these priorities: Priority 1: COVID-19 Response COVID-19 has obviously changed the way many facets of our city operate. One specifically is the need for more public outdoor space and more flexibility in the way businesses use the space afforded to them. Thank you for making more space for people and businesses through the parklet program and quickly issuing permits for businesses to use outdoor space. I strongly support the goal to evaluate the potential for retaining parklets indefinitely. In light of these programs that arose out of need during the pandemic, I think it's forced us all to reconsider how we use our public space. I believe it would be hard to return to a world in which we consider ample, free, on-street parking to be the highest and best use of so much of our public space. And I would think, as has been shown in other cities, that people using this space would agree. Taking the Pulse of State Street’s Pedestrian Promenade: Santa Barbara Chapter of the American Institute of Architects’ Survey Finds Car-Free Zone a Big Hit https://link.edgepilot.com/s/c5621440/GkFGF0iFC0iLz-69ja3AHg? u=https://www.independent.com/2020/08/22/taking-the-pulse-of-state-streets-pedestrian- promenade/ Priority 4: Affordable Housing - Housing Element California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, and it's driven by the cost of housing. https://link.edgepilot.com/s/e0bd94b9/xgU-NzlL90O1dy1gCoVatw? u=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/california-continues-to-have-the-highest- poverty-level-in-the-nation We must remove the barriers to the "missing middle" housing stock in our city. ADU access is a start, but further re-evaluation of existing zoning and land use policy will allow small scale development and incremental changes while steadily meeting the need for more housing in our city. More diverse forms of housing allow young people to stay in their hometown, working people to live near where they work, and older generations to age in place in their own neighborhoods - increasing the quality of life for all residents across different levels of age and income. Priority 6: Infrastructure Planning - Circulation Element As we just experienced nearly 2 weeks of unhealthy air quality in our city and across the state due to wildfires exacerbated by climate change (among other factors) I believe the city should keep in mind the 2013 Climate Action Plan when re-evaluating the Circulation Element. City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan https://link.edgepilot.com/s/4eb5ede4/rbqWYluDdEeqDXjzqdR8Fw? u=https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/1327/Climate-Action-Plan-PDF In the US, 20% of emissions come from cars on our roads. In our community, as noted in the Climate Action Plan, transportation (primarily by automobiles) accounts for 44% of emissions. Furthermore, accidents involving cars on our roads are the leading cause of death among children in the US. CDC: Leading Causes of Death by Age Group https://link.edgepilot.com/s/75a90667/tm72t0Pa8E2cmAqFsG4Chw? u=https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc- charts/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_unintentional_2018_1100w850h.jpg Causes of deaths for children between 5 and 14 https://link.edgepilot.com/s/1b163a52/BG-LZRAzAUidH0C_Il2hvQ? u=https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death%23breakdown-of-deaths-by-age In order to create safer streets, air, and climate, we must prioritize a Circulation Element that allows anyone to choose a safe and viable alternative to using a personal automobile - kids walking or biking to school, families biking to the beach or neighboring communities, anyone biking or taking the bus to work. The council has had many discussions about safety recently as it pertains to the ongoing discussions around policing in our city and around the country. Yet, we continually ignore the danger that we've built into our streets. The city's Bicycle and Trails master plan is not an adequate solution to this problem, as demonstrated by the minimal and inadequate projects left in that plan, like painting a sharrow on Grand Ave, that have yet to be completed. Safe and functional active and public transportation be inherent to the city's transit plan in the Circulation Element. Bicycle and Trails Master Plan https://link.edgepilot.com/s/76e7a74c/6IRhmAXJJ0WYQwhIxNPioA? u=https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/276/Bicycle-and-Trails-Master-Plan Priority 9: Infrastructure Planning - Brisco Interchange Project The city has $1.2M budgeted over the next 2 fiscal years for the Brisco Interchange project, with much more to be spent completing the project after that. The project itself is predicated upon the idea that Level of Service (time spent sitting idly in a car, though curiously not time spent standing at the bus stop, or waiting for a safe time to cross the street) for those driving into our city for services is a key metric to the functioning of our city, and worthy of millions of dollars in spending. The Congestion Con: How more lanes and more money equals more congestion https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8e0910a5/zsI2QA9S6k2KhGxrT-xUaA? u=https://t4america.org/maps-tools/congestion-con/ We don't have to continue that pattern. We could instead choose to spend much less money in ways that more directly and perpetually contribute to the quality of life of those in our city. We could improve our parks. We could build safer routes to school, granting kids more autonomy and parents more time. We could spend funds on staff time relating to completing all of the other priorities listed in this document. Regardless of my thoughts on the specifics of these priorities, I support this list of work to be done and look forward to seeing the progress in our city. Kevin Buchanan Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.