Council on potential tax: Give us roads, not reports

By Michael Chaldu · Wed Jan 14 2026

Councilmembers discuss possible transportation levy with SLOCOG, want to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy

ATASCADERO — In its first meeting of 2026, held on Tuesday, Jan. 13, the Atascadero City Council had a discussion with a San Luis Obispo Council of Governments representative on a potential transportation tax. During the non-action item on the agenda, the council was open to the tax to help pay for road projects, but were concerned about additional oversight by SLOCOG.

The council was at four members for this meeting as Councilmember Seth Peek was absent.

The discussion of the potential transportation tax was one of four items on the agenda for the City Council coming off its holiday break.

SLOCOG, which is the agency responsible for long-range regional transportation planning, funding allocation, and coordination among the county and its seven incorporated cities — including Atascadero — is evaluating a potential ½-cent transportation sales tax measure for the November 2026 ballot to establish a long-term, locally controlled revenue source for transportation improvements. SLOCOG pursued a very similar effort in 2016 (Measure J16) that fell short of the 66.7% threshold by approximately 450 votes.

After completing extensive regional engagement, including more than 70 presentations, focus groups, workshops, online surveys, website engagement, and coordination with local jurisdictions, SLOCOG has developed a Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan (DTEP) and Implementation Guidelines associated with the potential ½-cent transportation sales tax measure.

SLOCOG Communications Coordinator Annie Bowsky presented the plan to the councilmembers, noting that funding from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has been decreasing over the years (a projected $3.6 million in 2026 as opposed to $7.5 million in 2016), and unlike neighboring counties like Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Barbara, SLO County does not have a transportation tax to supplement those funds.

Of the revenue generated by a transportation tax (estimated to be approximately $35 million a year), Bowsky said 55% would be split among the county's cities for local road and traffic projects, for which Atascadero's share would be estimated at $2,029,354. Forty percent would go for regional projects.

Bowsky added that have additional funds generated by a tax would increase Atascadero's ability to seek state and federal grants for road repair, and estimated that over the last 10 years, the county could have gained an estimated $270 million from the tax alone, and about $430 million in grants. She said Atascadero's share could go toward road rehab, pedestrian safety, safe routes to school, or other transportation-related projects.

Finally, Bowsky introduced a list of guidelines and safeguards that included multiple reporting of the city's expenditures on projects from the proposed tax. The list included 18 items.

"We're not trying to reinvent the wheel," Bowsky said. "We just want to shown what it was being done.”

It was the last part that got pushback from council during questions and discussions. The councilmembers felt that the guidelines would add even more work and bureaucracy for a city staff that already had a Citizens' Sales Tax Oversight Committee to report to.

Councilmember Susan Funk was the first to suggest that that SLOCOG delegate that process to the city's committee. Bowsky answered that while SLOCOG would have no control over the city's share of the tax, it needed to make sure the funds were being spent on transportation projects.

"We want to spend money on roads, not accountants," Funk said.

Bowsky replied that the process wouldn't be a burden. "We’re just rolling in to what’s already done," she said. "It’s a tiny bit of additional reporting, we would try to make it as efficient as possible."

Mayor Charles Bourbeau later pointed to a section in the plan titled "Requirements for eligible jurisdictions," as an indicator of too much oversight.

"I can’t stress enough how minimal these requirements should be,” he said. “It concerns us that someone’s going to say the plan isn’t good enough anymore and have to address 25 more regulations. That’s a deal killer for us.”

In Public Comment, Atascadero resident Geoff Auslin, a frequent presence at the City Council meetings was skeptical about the proposed tax.

"I don’t think this is defined well enough for our city," he said. "How many more staff are we going to have to hire? How many consultants? How many people to lobby in Sacramento?"

At the end of the item, Bourbeau thanked Bowsky for taking the feedback for a future actionable item on the tax, and did have praise for the proposal.

"Overall, I like the plan," he said. "I like the 55% for the cities. I like the potential of matching funds for grants. As long as it stays efficient."

In other council business:

The council passed by a 4-0 vote the first reading of an updated ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the city. Among the most notable proposed changes, made mainly to conform with new state laws, was a 4-foot setback (which was changed to a 5-foot for approval), and a new maximum height increase to 25 feet for ADU with a 20% or more slope.

Council passed by a 4-0 vote the issuance of a lien and levy on a house located at 4543 Yerba Ave. The house had been declared a public nuisance earlier this year due to excessive debris outside of the house, and the city is seeking $7,269.60 for costs in cleaning up the property.

Council accepted the staff's Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Road Report. The report showed that $21.4 million had been spent on neighborhood road repairs, roads in the city considered good/excellent increased by 15%, and more than 80 neighborhood roads had been repaired.

The City Council will meet next on Tuesday, Jan. 27, at 6 p.m.