HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.B 07/16/2012 Agenda/
Se'Lt'dr
I85a
•
DATE: July 16, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of,a`Sales Tax increase.Measure on the November 2012 Ballot
RECOMMENDATION
Iris recommended that the Council consider placing'a:local sales;tax measure on the November
2012 ballot'and,direct staff to„prepare-a resolution for,;consideration and action at the Council's
August6, 2012 meeting; or provide other direction to staff, as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
On June25, 2012, the CityCouncil held a`special meeting to discuss local sales tax measures
that could fund the restoration and enhancement of city services. The Council discussed a
possible"Transient Occupancy Tax increase, and a local sales and use tax increase. A copy of the
June 25,2012 staff report/to Council is provided for additional`background (Attachment 1).
At the June 25f 2012 meeting, the majority of the Council determined it does not want to pursue
a Transient Occupancy Tax increase at this time. The Council is interested, however, in
determining the level of public support for a sales and use tax measure before making a decision
on that option. Given the short time-frame between its June 25,2012 and July 16, 2012
meetings, and the lack of funding available for a more formal effort, the Council indicated an
interest in"informal"polling—reaching out to groups and individuals to determine their
preferences regarding:
• a,local.tsales and,use tax
• whether such;a,tax should be a general or special purpose tax
• uses:for tax proceeds
• the taxirate and
• a sunset provision
As indicated in the attached report, and based on current:estimates, imposing a local sales and
use;tax of one_half percent(5%) would generate an additional,$4';95 million in annual revenue.
In the alternative, a one-quarter cent (.25%) increase would net an estimated $2,475,000
annually:
Agenda,Revi ew,`:
City Attorney t Finance Director. City Manager
1 `
Regarding "special" and "general"taxes, State:Constitutional and statutory requirements related
to tax=measures and pertinent to this discussion are found in Article XIITC, Sections 2 (b) and (d)
of the•State Constitution,and in California Government Code Sections 53724 (a) and (b).
Government Code section 53724(b) provides that prior to placing a.measure on the ballot to
impose or increase a general tax,the ordinance or resolution proposing the tax must be approved
by a two-thirds vote of all members of the legislative body. However, this requirement does
not apply to Petaluma. As a Charter City, Petaluma's chart er_and municipal code provisions
governing Citytelections prevail over inconsistent state law. Trader Sports Inc. v. City of San
Leandro (2001)) 93 Cal.App. 4th 37. The Petaluma City Charter provides that except as otherwise
specified in,the Charter, all regular and special city elections are to be held in accordance with
the California:Elections Code'. Section 43 of the Charter provides that affirmative votes of a
simple majority of the Council Members present is sufficient to pass ordinances and resolutions.
These provisions are very similar to the San Leandro charter;and municipal code provisions
based on which-the court in Trader Sports concluded that the two-thirds vote requirement was
preempted andidid not apply. To become effective, a simple majority of the electorate must
approve the proposed general tax. (Cal. Const., Art. XIITC, Section 2(b).)
Government Code Section Govt. Code § 53724(a),prescribes no special voting requirement for
placing a measure on the ballot.to impose or increase-a special tax. Therefore, the ordinance or
resolution proposing the tax may be approved by a simple majority vote of the legislative body
of the legislative body members present, in accordance with section 42 of the City Charter. This
would require the vote of four members if six or all seven are present, and three members if four
or five members are present. To then become effective, the,proposed special tax must then be
approved by ajtwo-thirds vote of the electorate (Cal. Const., Art. XIIIC, Section 2(d).
The Attorney's office has also indicated care should be taken in specifying the uses of any
increased tax amounts, if it is the Council's intention to seek approval of.ageneral tax from the
voters.
DISCUSSION
Following the Council's June 25, 2012 meeting, staff contacted theArgus Courier to request that
they survey their readers to determine interest in the tax. The Argus was planning to;do a survey
on the subject, but;limits surveys to no more than three questions. In this case, the questions
focused on the'"size of the measure, a sunset, and whether the tax should be special or general
purpose. Survey results are provided as Attachment 2. Nearly two thirds of respondents did not
favor any tax increase. Regarding a sunset, nearly three quarters of respondents favored a term
of five years or less. Just over a,third-favored a special purpose tax; about nineteen (19)percent
favored a general purpose tax; but forty (40)percent favored neither. The total number of
respondents was.less than 80. It should be recognized that these surveys are not, and are not
intended to bel accurate statistical representations'of public sentiment.
1 1
Staff also requested that-the Argus indicate in an article on the;subjectofthe sales tax that the
Public contactjthe City Manager's office with any comments they wished to share with the
Council. As indicated,public'feedback has been extremely limited; a total of six (6) pieces of
correspondence were received as of the writing.ofthis report, five(5) of which indicated
opposition to a sales tax increase. That group of correspondence is provided as Attachment 3 to
this report.
As discussed with the City Council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, Council member Healy organized
a poll that was conducted by polling professionals (Attachment 4). 1,216 Petaluma voters were
contacted and asked how supportive`they would be for one-half, and one-quarter percent tax
increases. These questions were related to a general-purpose tax. Results of this survey showed
sixty eight (68),percent indicating:a moderate to high level of support for a one-half percent
increase. This was the most heavilyfavored option of the two..Support for a one-quarter cent tax
was far less, with approximately fourteen percent expressing either moderated or strong support
for aone quarter percent increase. In that category, three,quartersof respondents indicated little
or no support for,an increase, with nearly fifty five (55) percent expressing no support. The
Councilmember indicated that this`poll provides a high degree of statistical accuracy, with a
variance of approximately plus or minus 2.2 percent.
Staff also attended the July 7, 2012 meeting of the Chamber of Commerce's Local Government
Affairs.Committee to discuss the tax measure. The group'did not'speak for the Chamber Board
or general membership, but was supportive'of a sales tax measure for a one-half percent increase.
The group felt the tax should be for general'purpose, and that the City Council should,be free to
allocate the proceeds in whatever manner it feels best serves the needs of the community. They
also supported a sunset of eight years,but felt nine could be acceptable.
Beyond these indicators of sentiment, Council members and staff have talked to various
individuals regarding the subject,with mixed responses that were not tabulated and cannot be
categorized as clearly representing one point of view over another.
If the Council wishes to pursue a sales tax increase, a special purpose tax, which would provide
guarantees to the voters as to how the funds would be spent, requires a simple majority of the
Council for placement on the ballot and a two-thirds majority of voters to pass. A general tax
provides the Council broader spending discretion but less specificity to voters. It also requires a
simple majority of the Council to place.before the voters, and asimple majority of voters to pass.
If the Council wishes to seek a special purpose tax, it will need to direct the uses the tax will
support. If a tax'increase is to be placed on the ballot, staff recommends that it be a general tax
with a sunset of at'least eight years. This will provide more,funding for a-variety of needs and
longer-term stability. Finally; staff recommends, with one exception - the use of proceeds to
finance ongoing:storni water maintenance costs - that any proceeds from this tax be treated as
one-time funds'. As such, itis recommended that the Council give priority to replenishing the
General fund reserve, street reconstructions and maintenance, vehicle replacement,street light
maintenance, and dredging. In treating proceeds as one-time funds, again with the one exception
of storm water maintenance, avoiding programs that increase staffing levels or annual recurring
costs is suggested.
The deadline for placing a tax measure on the Novernber2012 ballot is August 10, 2012. To
direct that a measure be placed on the ballot, the Council.needs to adopt a resolution by August
6, 2012. With Council direction; a resolution to authorize placing a measure on the November
3
2012 ballot, and an ordinance for consideration by the voters, addressing the sales and use tax
amount, term, and whether proceeds will be used for generalior special purposes, will be
prepared and returned to the Council for its consideration offAugusf6, 2012.
FINANCIAL.IMPACTS
The estimated cost for placing a measure on the November ballot ranges from $15,639 to $31,277. This
is based on the County Registrar's estimate of$.50 to $1.00 per voter. Currently there are 31,277 voters
registered in Petaluma. Costs would be borne by the General Fund, but.are•not currently budgeted.
ATTACHMENTS
1. June 25, 2012 Council staff report.
2. Sales Tax poll results from Argus Courier poll
3. Correspondence
4. Results of poll coordinated by Councilmember Healy
ft
ATTACHMENT
,SSAL04.
•
•
1 5a
•
DATE: June 25,.2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and.Members of the CityCounell.
FROM:-. John C. Brown,City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Related to Placing Tax Increase Measure(s)
on the November;2012'Ballot
RECOMMENDATION
It is.recomrnended that theCouncil consider and providethe'staff appropriate direction regarding
placing,a tax'increase'measure, or measures,on the November'20•12 ballot.
BACKGROUND
At the City Council's May 21,2012-,budget meeting, CouncilmemberRenee,expressed.strong
concern with the degradation;of City services due to ongoing budget reductions: She requested
that the topic of a,local sales tax to restore and enhance city services, be agendized for Council
consideration. There was Council consensus.to agendize this matter It was requested that the
conversation include the Transient Occupancy Tax. The Council'briefly entertained a similar
discussion in 2010, and furtherexplored increasing the TOT. An increase measure was++not
placed on the ballot at that time due to a lack of support from the,lodging industry and.business
community, The Council further and briefly, entertained a tax increase conversation during its
2012.goal.setting;session Council asked,staff to explore the feasibility of placing a TOT
increase on the June 2012sballot:. Doing so was%infeasible, dueto the findings that would have
needed to.have been made and supported at that time the cost"!of placing a measure on the June
ballot, and the continued lack of support from the-lodging and business community.
It%is estimated that,Petaluma will receive,approximately 59.9 million in FY 201.2/13. This
represents the City'stapproximate one (1%) share of+the'State-wide base uniforrmsales and use
tax. It is further estimated that Petaluma`will receive 51.350 million in TOT proceeds in
FY'20l2/13, based on Petaluma's TOT rate of ten (10%d) percent.
Petaluma's base sales tax rate is currently consistentwith,three other jurisdictions in Sonoma
County. Other jurisdictions'haveanmposed increases ranging-from one quarter(1/4) to one half
(1/2)cent in,local sales:,tax. One jurisdiction Healdsburg, has placed a one half cent,increase on
the November 2012 ballot, The following table provides arcomparison of sales tax rates in
Sonoma County cities:
Agenda Reviepo
City Attorneys Finance Director City Manager 1
Sales Tax Rate Comparison, Sononia•County Cities
CITY RATE
Clo %erdale 8.0`yo
Cotati- 8.5 %
fiealdsburg 8.0 %
• Petaluma 8:0
Rohnert Park 8.5 %
Santa.Rosa 8.5
Sebastopol 8.25%
Sonoma 8.5 % 2
Windsor 8.0 %
*State Board.of Equalzation_,Ma) 2012,except City of Sonoma
l ''/ cent,increase on November-2012.ballot
2 Yz cent increase approved onJunc2012`ballot
TOT rates charged.iriSonoma County generally consist of two:componehts, the rates adopted by
the various jurisdictions to fund,services withiri`the cities, and aseparate rate collected by most
jurisdictions:to:support a`county-wide orlocal business improvement area. TOT as discussed in
this report excludes the rates collected to support BIA's. Of the cities in Sonoma County with
transient occupancy taxes,Petaluma's rate is consistent with four other jurisdictions. Other rates
range from nine(9%),to:twelve (12%)percent The-following.table provides a comparison of
TOT rates in Sonoma County:
Transient OccupancyTax Rate::Comparison, Sonoma:County Cities
CITY RATE
Cloverdale 10'%
Cotati 10 %
Healdsburg 12%
Petaluma 10
,Rohnert Park 12 %
Santa:Rosa 9 '%
Sebastopol 10 %
Sonoma 10 P/u
Windsor 12 %,
DISCUSSION
As previously indicated, the City's estimated sales.jawevenues.for fiscal year 2.012/2013,are
$9.9 million. Increasing the rate to eightand one-half.percent,(8.5 %), consistent with,three
other Sonoma County cities;.would generate any additional 54..95.million in annual;revenues for
Petaluma.-A one-quarter cent ( 25%) increase would!inet an estimated 52,475,000:annually. If
adopted as'a'generalpurpose tax, these'Rinds could be'utilized for any city general.gos!enunental
purpose.
b
As the:Coubeil is aware, the;Cityof Petaluma has experienec.-extreme financial hardship since
FY 2007/08. Funding,for a long:list_of(ity services was reduced and approximately 20 percent
of the City's workforce was laid off;.,eliminated,;or•vacant positions.frozen. Funding for capital
projects,'facilities uaintenance, vehicle replacement, and reduction of long-term pension liability
was also',suspended, or severely reduced. This brought General Fund spending down from a
' 2008,level of$48 million to a.current level of$32.5anillion. .lb,the process,General Fund
reserveswere exhausted. AS if this situation was not sufficiently severe; the loss of
Redevelopriienl.hastishifted employee costs from the Redevelopment fund to the General and
other funds, funding.torregionaland local'.transportation,projects is threatened, and funding for
nonprofit organizations who:provide a;social.safety net is lost, ,A:recent correction in charges
has further exacerbated finanCiat hardship, leaving approximately$500,000 in.storm water
maintenance costs per year in-need of an alternate funding source.
Thissituation has created a large pool of unmet.needs, many of which could be'addressed with
the additional revenues thata sales tax increase could provide: ,For discussion purposes, City
departments have submitted for your consideration what they consider to be their most pressing
needs or the best use of increased sales tax proceeds (attachments), These items are,not
prioritized. 'Nor•do•they include the projects„that,would he.funded withthe parcel tax proposed
by the Petaluma.Friends of Recreation (PFOR) ifthat measure is approved by the rooters. I would
suggest that from amongall these soineof the.most pressing are restoration of the City's •
• reserves, street reconstructionsand.maintenance, vehicle replacement, streetlight maintenance,
dredging,.and storm water:maintenance. Unlessithe'Councifis interested in,implementing a
permanent or long-term increase, I would suggest treating these monies as one time revenues. In
doing so, avoiding programs that contain staffing or regularly recurring.costs.is also
recommended. if the Council:is interested:in a longer,term, or permanent:increase,the revenue
generated,from increased sales tax could'he leveraged by using it to support bonding for public
improvements. In particular, msignrficant amount of road work could he done'if financing could
be secured against this revenue source. This funding',could also be used to provide,a solution to
storm Water maintenance financing challenges:
If the Council,wishes to pursue a sales.tax increase,the_monies can be used for either,speciall
purposes, or for general purposes: As:a,special purpose tax,,whichwould providelguarantees to
the voters as to how the funds wouldbe.spent, a,siinplemajority vote of the City Council'would
be sufficient to place=the taxtmeasureromihe bailor, and a 213 majority vole of.tbe electorate
would„be,necessaryforPthe measure to-pass.A general purpose:tax would provide the Council
broader spending'2liscretion,but less specificity to voters. Typically; general tax measures must
be approved by a 2%3 majority of thelegislative bodYfor placement on,theballot, arid,approved
by a•simpleimajority,of the electorate to;pass. 1 here.`is case law indicating that the'l2/3"council
vote requirement For p1 icementof a,general tax'before the voters does not.apply.to charter cities
like Petaluma if a tax increase--:into be placed on the'ballot, staffrecommends that it be a
general purpose tat, rather'than atspeei fic,purpose tak.
The Council will also need to'determine; if a measure is to,be'placed on the ballot, whether it
will be temporary or permanent; and if it is to be teniporarv, for`how. long. A permanent or
longer tennstax increaseiwould fund.more,need, would.pirovidegreater long term stability,.and
facilitatedhe use.of'sofne of the;ifocecds for'sefVicingbonded'i debtedness. A..temporarytax
1
•
• The'Couricil Will also needaotdetennine,•if a measurers to beiplaced.on the ballot; whether it
will be temporary or permanent,,and if it is to be:temporary, for how long. A`permanent or
longerterm tax increase would'fund mbre.need;would provide.greater long-term stability, and
•facilitate:the use of some,of thee proceeds for servicing bonded A temporary tax
increase may be viewed niore.favorably by-the voters and hemore likely to pass: Of the eleven
jurisdictions that sales tax measures on the June ballot, only.one.did notplace a "sunset"
on the increase. Only that one measure; of the eleven, failed 'Of thos'e,measures with sunsets,
eight were'for frvc'years or less„and all of those measures were:for 'W`Ycent.increases.'
•
With respect to the Transient Occupancy Tax,the City Council ha`sfshown interest in thepast in a.
two (2) percent increase. Based on estimates for'FY 2012/13 this,would generate approximately
$270,000,per year„and would set Petaluma's base TOT rate:0.12 percent. This would equal the
highest rate of Sonoma County`cities, aid has opposed in the past,by;the:local lodging
industry.and:the-business community: As with sales tax, if an increase is,adopted as a general
purposetax, thes'e'funds could be utilized For any ay governmental purpose and would
only require a simple majority vote of the electorate to pass.. If theuse of funds'is designated, a
2/3 majority vote of the electorate would be required. In the past, discussion.regarding the.use of •
these funds has focused oiiaugmenting monies available for promoting tourism.
. Proposition.218 requires that local elections on general taxes;:must be consolidated with regularly
scheduled general elections for members,of the governing body of the local government. Local
elections-on,general taxes do not haveto be.consolidated with legislatne;body member elections
in cases where the legislative;body declares:by"a unanimous'vote that an-emergency exists. . The
consolidation requirement,docsnotapplyto special taxes. Special taxes may be offered at i
elections'other than general elections forlegislative body members.
If the Council intends to place:astazdireasure or nieaShreson theiballot for November, it must
approve offering themeasure(s)'to`the voters by August 10,.20.12, The Council'may act on the
measure(s) by resolution, although the actual measure(s) forconsideration by thevoters would
be in'ordinance form. Timing, including all applicable noticing, would require the Council`to •
act to place any tax measure for the November, 2012 election;before thevoters by the regular
meetingof August 6, 2012.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimated cost for placing:a measure on the November ballot ranges frorm.$J5,639 to
$31,277. Thts'istbased on the County Registrar • estimate of S:50 to $1:00 per voter. Currently`
there are 31;27,7-voters registered in=Petaluma If the Council;places two measures on the.ballot,
cost estiinates,range from $31,277 to $62,554. Costs.would beborne;by the General Fund but
are not.cimrently budgeted.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Use[_ofTax Funds—memos from Departments
2.
MOM regarding Potential Social Senfice`Safety Net
Coleman, "l ocal•Revenue Measures in California,June.20.12 Preliminary Results',CaliforniaCityFinanec.Com.
June.6.2012. 1
•
Brown, John - •
•
From campbellzone@gmailicom on behalf of GeoftBradley[geoff@mplanninggroup.corn]
Sent: Thursday,-June 14,.2012f14:18
To: . Brown','John
Cc,. Hines',:Heather
Subject: Planning Items in the.Event'of Improved Budget Scenario
John --Heather and 1 have discussed this and the only items we have oommup with are the IZO amendments
that the Council has prioritized in the past:
• Update Sign Code,
.• Revise.Hillside Ordinance
• Update Historic Preservation.Ordinance
• Update SMART codc,(warrants, allowed uses, etc.)
• Public:Art update
• Noise Ordinance oGerhaul
There:may be-enough changes here toawarrant,a comprehensive-update of the IZO. These typically run
$100,000 to $150,000 in 2012'dollars.
Hope that helps.
thanks
Geoff
Geoff I. Bradley, AIGP
M-GROUP I Principal
579 Clyde Avenue, Suite 340
Mountain View;California 94043
• 650938.1111 ,x102
m ETROPOLITANTLANNINO GROUP I n ,ru da:;,n;,l&j E'nn time;.';
Sia -Ing Soli,ti nn I oli c v PI ann i'ty Uoa DirSigil S lai aabi lily Set-vim
,nl4miiuv•rn,sp
)lti;AB I Join the conversation on i:cincal'mw,kc.corhS.hmu•.'uon,mtl 1R^.Pia:h.vs mplannine4itno corn/mIab
1 N^f•
1
From: St. John, Dan
Sent Monday, June 11, 2012 11:01
To: Bates, Curtis; DeNicola, Ron;Hill, Denise; Rye, Joe; Scherzinger, Remleh; Simmons, Steve; Zimmer,
Larry
Cc: Brown, John
Subject: Needs for Public Works and Utilities
Needs List _ .PW&U
Item One Time Annual Costs Reference
Cost
Street Pavement Deferred $9,000,000 2012 PCI Report
Maintenance
Community Center Roof $200,000 Staff Assessment
Replacement
Comm—Unity Center Deferred $115,00.0 Staff Estimate
Maintenance •
Cavenaugh Center Deferred $150,000 Staff Estimate
Maintenance
Marina & Turning Basin. $2,000,000 Guess
Dredging
Street Light Deferred $50,000 $75;000
Maintenance.
Traffic Signal Deferred $150,000 $75,000
Maintenance
Street Maintenance $150,000 Crack Sealer
Equipment Equipment
ADA Plan Implementation $50,000 Legal/Risk Opinion
Stormwater Program $480,000 "look forward"
estimate
Parks Deferred Maintenance $150,000 $75,000
Totals $2,965;000 $9,75.5,000
Sincerely,
Dan St. John, F.ASCE
Director, Public Works and Utilities
City of Petaluma
202 N.McDowell Blvd
Petaluma.CA 94954
707-778-4593 office
707-331-4844 cell
10
'CITY ORP�ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Pblice.Admihistration, 969 P Petaluma.Boulevard North, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 7784377 Fax(707) 778-4376 E-mail:police @ci:petaluma.ca.us
DATE: May 29, 2012
TO: John Brown, City Manager
FROM: Dan Fish, Chief ofPolice
SUB'JECTE Proposed Use of Tax Funds
If the City of Petaluma was to establish a•,tax increase, I would propose'the following additions to the police
department as critical needs arid top priority reinstatements.
Dispatcher Position
•
The staffing levels in.dispatch are'precarious. The recent freezing of a position to balance the budget will
stretch call taking and dispatching'to the, limit and will reduce our ability to quickly and effectively dispatch
calls for service, Any extended absences (vacation, injury, illness, FMLA, etc.)of communications center staff
will create overtiine expenditures.
Relief-here could be,accomplished by'unfreezing the fulltime dispatcher position or by increasing allocation to
part time-staff and hiring additional part time-personnel to make up the difference but'reducing benefits costs.
Cost; $100,000 (approximate)
Community Impact Program
Create the Community. Impact Program which would he, tasked with addressing a. number: of quality of life
issues in the community? My vision.for this unit would'include unfreezing a full time.Police Sergeant position
for'supervisioh, five (5) full time Polite Officer positions'and a Community Service Officer. The duties would
include School,.Resource Officers, Gang Education and Enforcement, Alcohol Enforcement Officer, Narcotics,,
Code Enforcement; 'Abandoned Vehicles and Problem Oriented Policing. This unit would take the place of the
previously established Street Chines-Unit and would be assigned to a Lieutenant under the Special Operations•
Division in the Police Departhieht Organizational chart.
Cost
Police Sergeant $170;000
Police.oflicer(5) S750,000
Community Service Officer S 80,000
51,000,000
City o`fPetaluma, California.
Memorandum
Petaluma Fire.Department, 198 D.Street, Petaluma, CA:94952
(707) 778-4390 Fax(707)'762-4547 E-mail: tiredeptt&o ci:petaluma,ca.us
DATE: May 31, 2012:
TO: John Brown, City Manager
•
FROM: , Larry B. Anderson; Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Sales Tax Measure- Fire•Department Items#orConsideration
John:
Per yourrequestfora list tof'items that might be considered`for funding from a sales tax
measure; the following three items (categories) are,submitted as options:
1. Fleet Replacement Program,
a Communications,Center
3. Fire,PreVention Bureau Position Staffing
For a quick summary, if all itemswere funded as-outlined below, the cost, as well as
the amortized costovera six year period, would be:
Total Cost $3,673,500
Amortized $612,250/year.
Fleet Replacement Program
Description -The fleetreplacement program includes all fleet that is essential to
emergency and support operations: It includes fleet that:isnow past due through the
next six years (F ( 2018/19). There are a total of 21 pieces of equipment utilized.in°the
Fire Department fleet, including reserve apparatus. Because fleet is rotated from'front
line to reserve, the total fleet replacement inventory is 17, not 21.
Summary Scope of,Cost'— The funding required to bring the fleet replacement
program current through the next six years is:
Total Cost $3;273,500
Amortized $545,583/year.
l3
Detail -.The following apparatus.,arescheduled for replacementin the order listed. The
apparatus,listed'only includes•fleet that is past due'(4 units)°and/or scheduled for
replacement overthe next six year period:
1.. Type 3 Wildland Engine - $350;000
- This unit (9341) is.currently t5 years overdue for replacement.
- Upgrades existing unit from:a Type 4 to a Type 3 unit.
- Unit is scheduled for replacement every 15 years.
2. Emergency Response/Support Vehicle $44,500
- Unit 9305 (FM) Is currently 6 years overdue for replacement.
- Scheduled to be replaced every 10 years.
3: Emergency Rescue/Spediat Operations Boat -$65;000
- IRB Unit (Boat) is currently 5 years overdue for replacement.
- Scheduled to be replaced every 10 years.
4. Type 1 'Structural Fire Engine-'$500,000
- Unit 9382 is.currently'3 years overdue for replacement.
- Scheduled to be replaced every 15 years,
5. Type 1 Ambulance (a) - $200;000
- Unit M991 is due for replacement(now)' FY 2012/13:
- Scheduled to be replaced every 6years.
6. Support Vehicle 1 -$44,500
- Unit 9320 (INSP) is due forreplacementin. FY 201-3/14
- Scheduled to:be replaced every l0years.
7. Support Vehicle 2 -$44,500
- sUnit 9321 (INSP) is due-for replacement in FY 2013/14
- Scheduled to be replaced every 10 years..
8. Battalion Command Unit:= $75,000
Unit-.9301 is due'for replacement in FY 2015/16.
- Scheduled to,be replaced every 10 years_
9. Aerial Ladder Truck.-$1,200,000
- Unit 9351 is due'for replacement in FY 2015/16.
- Scheduled to be replaced every 15 years:
10.Emergency Response/Fire,Chief'Vehicle -$50,000:;
- `Unit.9300 is due for replacement in FY.2016/17
- !Scheduledto'be`replaced€every 10 years.
I-3
11.Type 1 Structural Fire„Engine>- $500;000
- Unit 9383 is due'for replacement in FY.2016/17.
- Scheduled to be replaced.every 15 years.
12.Type 1 Ambulance(b) $200,000
- Unit M993 is due for replacement FY 2018/19.
- Scheduled to be replaced every 15 years.
Communication Center
1. REDCOM JPA Dispatch Services - $250,000 (annual ongoing costs)
Base dispatch service cost.
MDC replacement.
- MDC air-card.
Fie Prevention Bureau Position Staffing (Replacement1
2. Fire:Inspector! Position • $150,000 annually
- Annual wages and salary.
Benefits
IT
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA •
MEMORANDUM
Finance:Department,-ltEnglis/Street, Petuluma,:.C4 94952
(707) 778-4352. .Fax.(707).778-4428 E-mail:JinancI@ci.petal uuaica.us
DATE: June 19,2012
TO: John.Brown. City:Manager
FROM: Bill Mushall'o; Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Critical Needs City-Wide and in the Finance Department
The purpose of.this'memorandum is twofold. The9irstgoal is to provide you with items
that are in need offundington.a City-Wide basis. The second objective is to provide a
summary of ethical needs�withi'n'the FinanceDepartment.
There are several areas within the City that are desperately in need of funding. I will
itemize them individually'below:.
I. Velicleand equipment replacement fund. The vehicle and equipment
replacement fund balance is,approximately $150,000: This amount is
dangerously lowwhen taking into consideration replacement needs.
Contributions:tothe fund:have varied but the General Fund contributed between
$200,000 and $400;000 annually during several previous years and a minimum
annual contribution,;in;this range would be prudent.
2. Rate holidays. During the past;.two budget cycles,General:Fund•rate holidays.
totaling $212,100 annually have been included for the General Services and
• Worker's•Compensation funds. Reserves are beingdepleted due to these holidays
and eliminatiiig'thcn5 would stabilize fund balances.
3. Storm water utility funding. As discussed during Monday's Council Meeting
.apptoximatelyf$500;000 is required annually to fund storm water system
maintenanceactivities.
4, Replenish General Fund reserves tip.to the 15% of expenditures goal
(approximately$4,8 million) over the duration of the'sales tax initiative.
5. Increaseeconomic development funding
6. Street"maintenance finding
7. City Hall improvenients and'improvcments ttrother City facilities
8. Alternative:cncrgy initiatives
16
The second=goal.ofthis'methoranduni is:to respond to your rcquestto;providc'a list of the
most critical needs. ,within'the'Finanee Departnienf to be;funded'Should additional
revenues'.become available. I have analyzed;the Department's resources and have
determined the following areas to be the,highest^priorities and critically in need of
additional resources:
1. Adminisirativ;e_supportto assist with Council'item preparation, policy updates,
budget and CAFR_documen •,preparation, KFP development, PRA requests, etc.
2. Accounting Technician support to assist with.lowerhnid;level accounting duties.
These duties include:bank:reconciliations and associated research, treasury report
development, grant'i eportiiig;.joumal entry preparation, fixed asset accounting,
daily cash receipts,°etc This would free up Accountant/Analyst time to do
needed account analysis, budget analysis, year-end'reporting,.and analysis, report
preparation(i:e. AB=1600),'etc. •
The most efficient way to;accomplish the tasks mentioned above would 1,,e to fill either
the vacant Accounting Technician.or vacant Administrative Technician,position. The
full •burdened cost of filling either position would be'approxirnately $100,000.
Brown;.John
•
From:• 'Brodhuri,:Scott`
•
• Sent: ,Mohday;,June 18,2012 16:30
To:' 'Brown,-John
Subject: Sales Tak Initiative
John,
• Vm hot sureif you want narrative with thesethings. I'm happy to write this, and:dther dept's narrative as is necessary.
• Parks and Rec:
- ReinstatePark Maintenance II Workersfrom•PW. (3) $300,000 annually
-• Reinstate frozen ParklMaihtenante'Leadworkers (2) $220,000 annually
- Reinstate frozen Park:Maintenance,) (2) $200;000 annually
- .Reinstate-and Upgrade Park:
•
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
,Housing Division, ?THoward.Street Petahin+0, CA94952
(707) 778-4484 Fat•.(707) 778-4586 E'0n00070)u.singCa)ci:petalutna.co us
DATE: June 20, 2012
TO: John Brown, City Manager •
FROM: Bonne Gaebler, Housing Administrator
SUBJECT: Potential Social Service•Safety Net
John: As you,requested, this memo is in response to Councilntember Renee's suggestion
regarding the potential fora."backfill"`revenue source to replace the now-defunct redevelopment
low-mod housing set-aside:in order to continue to serve our most vulnerable citizens.
• The City Council goals, as•artictilated•in the City's 201042015 Consolidated Plan,and'2009-2014
Housing Element, emphasize'progranis and projects which provide support and assistance:for:
Seniors
Youth
Persons with a disability
Additionally, the most recent-Census data shows that the two fastest growing demographics in
Sonoma County are Seniors and Latino families. in pieviou"s•years, the City Council has
allocated redevelopmenttresourcesto.the following nonprofit.agencies/programs on an annual
basis to address the needs of those populations:
Petaluma.People Services Center Rental Assistance.Progrant $153,500
(including senior"close•the gap" assistance)
Salvation Army Transitienal.Hotising $75,000
(homeless families)
COTS Family Shelter $259,000
Singles Shelter $300,000
• Transitional Housing $75,000
• (t'etetans/singles)
Rebuilding Togcther•Petaluma Housing.Rehab $75.000
(senior/disabled)
Boys and Girls Club Low-income Youth Program $400,009
North Bay Children Center LatinoYouth Program $50,000
• PEP/Eden/Burbank Potential New Development $250,000
(senior/family rentals)
• Total Annual Allocation for Social "Safety Net" Programs $1,637,500
if you would like additional information, please feel free to call me at X484.
iL
_ .. .
--,
ATTACHMENT`&z--i
. . . •
SALE S TAX INCREASE' II ,
,.
Here'slhowseaderS votegn last week's online":su-Nay.
Pulse ofiPetalurna;pollresultsjthlecisentimenisl'of'
personskpartiCipiting iii the onlineparilie,preVibus,week. .
• and are riot ihtendedras'astatisticallyJvalid representation
of public sentiment any give rrissue.
1..WhiCly of:the,,followingsalesjaxincreaseTropos-
alS,,iould yOujavor jfrIlie.citY:wereAo place,one;onithe
November ballot?
Gila iie i.lent 7 91%
,,,,,
. „.
Haltcent • 18 23:9%
.... . ..__,
Highir, I 2 2.6%
. ,
'NO sales takincreese 49. 63:6%
. ..
Net sari' ' 1 1:3%
2:. If the implement a sales tax in:OrbaSe; when
Shtitild it be.set to e*p ire?
&se art . . .24, 311%
,8years, 3 3:9o/
10 years , 4, 512%
Mbee1haeflOilears 4. Z:2%
1.eSs!than,5 years )33: 42.9%
:Nit.Sure 9 11.7%
3 Would you prefer a speppl,purpose,taxphieh:guaran-
fees voters that money Will,beSpent.for kspedif ic'purpose
but requiresi2avoierapproval,"orgenef41.purpo*tax
where the nioney•can:lie:spent on arvariety'pf SerVice-s.
and requires onlya 50 percent-plus-one vote?
Special gelposel . 27 35.1%
tgeneralPlaose 14, 18.8%
}le 101e r .31 40:3S
Net sure 5 6.5%
0
http://pulse :of-petaluma.blogs:petaltima360.com/files/201 2107/P icture-8.png
ATTACHMENT'ci
From: James Pointer [JPOINTER @COMCAST.NET] •
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012'10'58 AM
To citymgr'daveglass @comcast:net;;councilman:albertson @gmai(':com;
teresa4petalurna @comcast.net mike4pet @aol;com; mtliealy @sbcglobal.net
councllmemberkearney @me corn jiff @tiffanyrenee.com
Subject: Petaluma
Dear Mr. Brown, Mayor Glass, and council members:
I have read with interest the proposal to increase the sales tax to "benefit" Petalumans.
Unless and until this city changes-its antiquated methods and hires personnel who are actually helpful, I ,for
one, will be vehemently opposed to any increases.
TodayI received a water bill for an apartment I lived in in December..As instructed on the bill, I called
707.778.4350 "for utility billing questions." I ended up with 2 voice robot options: 1 to pay this bill; 2 to hang
up.
I.called water administration, and of course, the only number they had was 778.4350. I had to call Mr.
Brown's office to find a person who would help me (Sue Simmons).
Also, has anyone looked at your traffic'engineering? The synchronization and planning of traffic signals in this
city was apparently the result of a seventh grade science project. The problems with our streets are not
related to volume of traffic. They are solely caused by frankly idiotic placement and strategy related to signals.
I go to RP rather than downtown Petaluma from my residence on the east side. Try the freeway and East
Washington, or McDowell and East,Washington, or the freeway and Lakeville. With;a'little thought to traffic
patterns and synchronization; traffic ri this city could be much better. A little street construction will not make
a difference.
Don't get me wrong. I.love the charm of this town, and I have lived in 7 bay area,towns and cities. To thrive,
Petaluma has to move out of the 1950's and into this century. Get rid of an outdated, inefficient water
department (It took 2 weeks for me to get the city to check my water-it is full of bacteria, contains low levels
of lead, and contains so much particulate matter that it blocks my faucets). Take traffic engineering out of the
elementary schools and hire someone who knows what he/she is:doing. Stop the whining about needing more
money. The city already provides barely marginal services. Clean house, retire the deadwood, privatize
agencies that you cannot efficiently run. Then, we'll see about a tax increase. (With apologies to Mr. Harris)
Jim Pointer, MD
1
�'v
F.nom:
Sent: Wednesday; July 11, 2012 8:,10
To 'chrisalbert'son @corricast:nett;'Teresa Barrett);-'Dave Glass'; 'Mike4Pet @aol.com; 'Michael
Healy; 'Gabe:Keainey; 'Tiffany Renee'
Cc: Brown, John
Subject: Citizen Message to Council
All —
Received a call late yesterday from MelanieDaVis, who lives on Ruth Court in Petaluma. 696-1502
She wanted to leave the message for all the Councilmembersthat she is opposed to any sales tax increase;
upset,that it took 7+ years to build the Regency'project and the sale stax that has been lost with that delayed
approval; upset that.Council did not'approveltbe change to the sign ordinance for commercial signs facing the
freeway as there are many stores that currently have signs facing the freeway.
Thanks,
Katre'Crtunp
Exec. Assistant to the City.Manager
(707) 778-4347
kcrump @ci.petaluma.ca.us
' City Hall hours as ofj 1/3/08:
Mon.-Thurs. 8-5; Closed Fridays
„ 1
From: John Volpi [jvcatch @yahoo.com]
C .Sent: Friday, June29, 2012'9:01 PM
•citymgr
Subject taxes
I read in the Argus Courier that the city council is thinking about raising taxes. I noticed that people
who want to express+their opinion on:this issue were encouraged to send a message here. There are several
-reasons that raising.taxes is a bad idea.
Many people'(includingnme) do.notRwant-to pay higher taxes: If somebody believes that the city
government needs.moremoney, this person can privately give the city money. I don't like the idea of the
government forcing people to payfor;something they may or may not.care about„Also, when people believe
that the government needs more money, I'm not happy with thepeople"who like the idea of forcing other people
to pay for.something that the former group wants. If these people:are willing to give their money to the
government, they shall VOLUNTARILY give the government money, but the shall not force other people to
give up their hard earned money. Voluntarism is key for a free society;while forcing people;to give away their
money is the opposite of encouraging;freeder n.
I am afraid that inflation will be aresult of new taxes. If we raise the sales tax,the product that people are
purchasing will essentially become more expensive. If we raise take's on hotels, it will cost more to sleep in a
hotel A parcel tax will make something as necessary'as living in a house more expensive.
Businesses would struggle as a result of tax increases, and this maycause employees to be layed off. The
amount of money that convenient stores(and other stores that,a sales_tax may affect) make will decrease as a
result of an increased sales tax rate. Hotel,owners will make less money.as a result of an increased hotel tax
rate. When these entrepreneurs-make less money, they can not afford as many employees as they otherwise
could afford. These.tax increases would cause;the.unemployment rate to rise. Also, the housing market (which
(” '. is already struggling) would be affected negatively if a parcel tax is placed.
Finally, these taxes are not guaranteed to increase government revenue. If the sales tax rate is increased,
people will be encouraged to shop less often. When people shop less often, less sales tax revenue is
accumulated. If the government decides to increase the hotel'tax rate, tourists will'not want to come to Petaluma
and stay in a hotel. When people are not staying in hotels, the government does<:not receive the desired revenue
from a hotel tax. If a parcel tax is imposed, peopleare:less,like to.buy property,and the revenue from property
taxes will decline.
A tax increase would include all of the above negative effects. I strongly believe that the city council
should consider these negative effects before thinking about raising taxes: I also believe that the government
"should try harder to seek private funds.
•
On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Kathy Brandal wrote:
To: Petaluma City Council and John Brown
From: Tom and Kathy Brandal
25 Douglas Street
Petaluma
We will not be_supporting a measure to increase the sales tax in Petaluma. Nor will we be supporting any other tax
increases.
Wasting $15,000'to $30,000 to put the'mea sure on the ballot is an example of why we need more money. What we have
is wasted on a daily basis. More common sense is needed in running the,City,not.more tax money.
(We do not have the city manager's email address. Please forward our opinions on to him. Thank you.)
ti
•
•
From: Janice:'Cader Thompson [janicecader @gmail.corn]
('Sent: Monday, June 25,-2012 1228 PM
To: Cooper, Claire,:CityCouncil; Dave Glass
`Subject: RE: Park Bond Measure/TOT
Janice Cader:Thompson
732 Carlsbad Court
Petaluma,CA 94954
June 25,2012
RE:Park Bond Measure/TOT Tax
Dear Mayor Glass and Councilmembers:
After reviewing the Park Tax Measure I did not see a dollar.amount in the Park Tax measure for maintenance.Can the council add language to
include a percentage,for maintenance before placing it on the ballot?Not addressing these costs will impact the cities general fund If the public
were included in the discussion:of this ballot measure concerns couldlhave".been addressed and language added to financially protect the City of
Petaluma. Please don't ignore the costs of maintaining,publicly owned facilities.
I support increasing the TOT tax:People plan vacations for many reasons.I don't believe.vacations to Petaluma or Sonoma County would be
canceled because of a small increase.in TOT tax. The financial benefit to our community would be positive.
Thanks you,
Janice
•
•
1 ,(�
rom: edmaas @juno.com
Sent Monday, June 25, 2012 2:55 PM
To DaveGlass @Comcast:net, Tiff@T,iffanyRenee com, Mthealy @sbcglobalnet;
Mike4Pet@ AOL.com;'Teresa4Petaluma @Comcast:net;-ChrisAlbertson @comcast.net;
CouncilMemberKearney @Me_corn
Subject: Possible',Sales Tax and TOT Tax Increases
Mr. Mayor, Madame Vice Mayor and Council Members:
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. Iwould, however, like to share my thoughts regarding the
proposed Sales Tax and TOT tax increases. First of all, I was not favor of a sales tax increase until I gave
the subject considerable'thought: My suggestion is that the.Sales Tax`be increased 1/4%. According to the
Petaluma Patch this would give the City,approximately $500,000. My hope is that the city will use this money
wisely if it receives-it (or anything close to this total). I also:am in favor of the City being more transparent as
to where the money goes. I full recognize that there is a breakdown each year when the budget for the
following year is,being proposed, however, I find it to be somewhat vague in certain areas. I believe that
more clarity would help the residents to understand better where exactly their money is going and what the
City is doing with it at this time, I.am opposed to anysales tax increase above 1/4% as I believe it would
cause a greater-burden than the problems that it would "solve.
I am in favor ofa'TOT tax increase, however, I am concerned about the backlash this may cause due to
— the fact that this tax?seems to be increased every year As long as this';City believes that it would not be
,detrimental to tourism, I would be in favor of this being increased once again. My belief is that the City needs
to look at other sources-of revenue instead of taxing seemingly the same sources over and over.
In conclusion, these are my views. I don't envy any of you tonight, however I thought I would give my
•input since I won't be there. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Ed Maas
53 Year.OldMom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
htto://thirdpa tvoffers.Juno.tom/TGL3131/4fe8de30dd775e3045dfst53duc
1
d-
ATTACHMENT
June 28, 2012 Poll on a,Petaluma General Sales
Tax Measure for November 2012 Ballot
Last Monday we were talking about possibly placing asales tax measure on the
November ballot, and it quickly became apparent that our decision making process was
being hampered by a lack of good data regarding what the voters would actually be
willing to support.
With that thought in mind, I took the initiative to see if I could get a poll done. I
want to thank both the Petaluma Lodging Coalitiom(the hotel,owners in town)and the
Petaluma Police Officers Association for funding the poll. The poll was fielded last
Thursday evening.
Most polls have a sarnple size of 400 likely voters, which gives you an accuracy
of+/- 4.9 percentage points with 95% confidence. The poll last Thursday was responded
to by 1,216 likely Petaluma voters, which gives an accuracy of+/- 2.2%. That's far more
accuracy than is needed to make an informed decision.
The poll informed voters the following information in the form of a ballot
measure, specifically:
"Local:officials-are considering a plan to place a sales tax measure
on the Noveniber'Ballot to help maintain essential City services
including police and fire protection; drug and gang-crime
prevention; restore school resource officers;,property and
nuisance-related crime prevention; street.paving and pothole
repair; parkiand,storm water maintenance,;:streetlight maintenance,
and restoring-essential community programs."
Voters were then asked:
"How supportive are you of a.one half c ntusjes tax for the next
eight years, with all revenue staying in the City and subject to
annual, independent audits and public expenditure reports?"
Bearing in mind that this,is a general tax measure that would need.majority
support, here are the results for a Y2 cent sales tax:
Very supportive 47%.
Somewhat supportive; 21%
Not very supportive; 11%.
Not supportive at all 17%
No opinion 5%
So, combining hard.and soft,support and opposition, you have 68%
support and 28% opposed., Again', combining'hard and soft support, a half cent
sales tax is supported by 72% of west"sid&Voters and by 65% of east side
Voters. It is supportedby 78%0 of registered Democrats and by51% of
registered Republicans.
This poll result is the greenest of green,lights_from our-voters•to proceed
with a half cent general taxmeasure.for the Novefnber ballot. The $5 million
this would raise each year for the next 8 years-would allow us to upgrade
service levels in a very meaningful way.
I am incredibly pleased that our voters are prepared to support a modest
tax increase that will restore essential services and increase the quality of life in
this wonderful town. I look forward to this(council_;moving forward with this.
I also want to address briefly concerns about too many tax measures being
on the'same ballot,Which;is a recurring-theme.. In November 2004, Santa Rosa
voters faced two proposal's,to:raise;the;sales'tax. One was local Measure 0, to
raise the sales tax by a quarter cent for public safety. The other was county-
wide Measure M, to raise the sales„tax by a'quarter cent for transportation. Both
measures needed'a two thirds vote to pass, and'both did pass. In my view, the
takeaway is that we have very well educated voters who understand that
different tax measures would"raise funds for different purposes,,and they will
judge each measure on its merits:
d-�