Viewpoint Article

by Councilman Dave Romero

At it’s May 16, 2000 meeting, the City Council took two actions that, though perfectly legal, were in my opinion at variance with desired city priorities or past practice. I voted against each because I didn’t feel our actions in either case were "the right thing to do." I’ll share some history and concerns.

 

 

This project originated (with funds contributed from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) as a property acquisition and development of a Transit Transfer Center to be located near downtown. The selected location was on Higuera near Toro, however after several years of negotiation, staff was unable to come to terms with the property owner.

 

As timing for the availability of the funds was about to expire, the property near the train depot became available and staff switched their emphasis to developing that site instead. As it turns out the new site on Santa Barbara is too far from the desired bus transfer point in downtown, and the project changed to one which will create 123 parking spaces (mostly for Amtrak users), 6 layover spaces for regional buses and a future Railroad Museum in an old freight building located on the site.

Property acquisition was $400,000 more than expected, and design changes brought the project in an additional $370,000 over original budget. With the project $770,000 over budget, and once again facing loss of funds because it had taken so long, staff scrambled to make up the short fall. This included taking $274,000 from the Street Reconstruction account and $150,000 from the Parking Fund. Those are the roots of my concern.

The Pavement Management Plan (April 1998) shows the City has a street deficiency of $17 million. To bring City streets up to a "good" (not excellent) condition will require an expenditure of $2.3 million per year for a ten-year period. For the past three years we have expended an average of $1.1 million per year on streets so we’re just about staying even, but not gaining on the deficiency. The $274,000 taken from the street fund to cover a shortfall on a parking lot for Amtrak customers does not represent the best expenditure of these funds in my way of thinking.

Revenues for the Parking Program are generated primarily from meters in downtown and are earmarked only for parking purposes. The parking program includes enforcement of several parking districts near Poly and enforcement of parking near The Amtrak Depot, however those enforcement programs bring in very little revenue. In my view spending $150,000 in Parking Funds collected from downtown users for this remote location is simply not keeping faith with our downtown customers and businesses.

Is it legal? Sure. Is it the right thing to do? I don’t think so.

 

 

The City of San Luis Obispo has always been very conservative in authorizing new positions. Personnel costs represent 80% of the city operating budget. With the constraints from proposition 13 and subsequent legislation, and with the state take-a-ways of city property taxes in recent years, the City has to be very cautious in adding new personnel. Historically the City has added personnel only at budget review when all other needs can be considered and judgments made regarding the most judicious use of funds.

Early last spring, members of the environmental community requested the City prepare a job description for a Fisheries and Wildlife Biologist. The entire Council concurred with the preparation of the information. The job description, estimated costs and duties were presented for Council approval at the meeting of May 5, well before consideration of the next Budget. Therein lies the problem.

The Biologist position was well justified in the staff report and by presentations form the environmental community. However, I’m sure strong justification could be made for additional police, fire, public works, utility, and administration positions as well. To make a reasoned judgment, the Council should consider personnel needs along with capital and operational needs balanced against anticipated revenues, and only after testimony from the public at a hearing. If the Biologist position were considered in that context and at the top of our personnel needs, I would vote for it. As it was the Council simply responded to the pressure of a special interest group. To be consistent we should respond in a similar manner to any other group that makes a similar request.

 

Was our action legal? Sure. Was it the Right Thing to do? I don’t think so.