HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/1993, C-1 - MINUTES MEETING AGENDA
DRAFT 'TE ITEM # �-/
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1993 - 1:30 P.M.
CITY/COUNTY LIBRARY - COMMUNITY ROOM - 995 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
J b2 Zi,prOv�!
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Roalman.
-%f coL3r?Cil
o{ 9d -9 —
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Member Dave Romero,Allen K. Settle,Vice-Mayor Bill
Roalman, and Mayor Peg Pinard (arrived at 1:43 PM)
Absent: Council Member Penny Rappa
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City
Attorney; Diane Gladwell, City Clerk; Ken Hampian, Assistant
City Administrative Officer;Ann Slate, Personnel Director; Bill
Statler, Finance Director; Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Director,Bob Neumann, Fire Chief
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
There were no public comments.
STUDY SESSION
1. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ANNEXATION (File No. 238)
I. INTRODUCTION -PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
John Dunn. City Administrative Officer, introduced the workshop and environmental and financial
analysis of annexations.
11. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS -WHAT IS IT?
Angus McDonald, Study Session Facilitator,defined fiscal impact as a comparison of on-going costs
and revenue. He stated that traditional sources of funding for public improvements were no longer
available, therefore, development-related infrastructure needed to be funded via impact fees and
reimbursed over time through other mechanisms. He defined impact as the difference between two
courses of action;for example,to annex vs. not to annex. Fiscal impact analysis entailed forecasting
the local economy,then describing land uses in enough detail to determine the costs to serve those
land uses. Land uses need to be market sensitive, and he recommended a fiscal team comprised of
City Department Heads to determine mitigation measures for the negative fiscal impacts. He
recommended applicants fund capital facilities planning and engineering studies up front and that
fiscal analysis be done as a whole process (totality of area) rather than on a project-by-project basis.
He discussed annual monitoring of environmental impact reports, consistency in
City Council Meeting Page 2
Tuesday, August 24, 1993- 1:30 P.M.
fiscal analysis,maintaining balance,and providing benefit assessment districts in areas where special
benefits were realized.
III. EXPERIENCE IN OTHER CITIES
Bill Feldmeier. Director of Financial Planning from the City of Davis, described their process of
establishing a municipal service company that comprised various city services and recognized assets.
Jerry Fraser,Principal Planner for the City of Santa Maria,described their process to incorporate 3,500
acres within their sphere of influence. He described the anticipated process to complete annexation
of the area, including LAFCO requirements for school mitigation plans.
Dale Pfeiffer, Director of Public Works for the City of Vacaville, described their modeling techniques
and water rights purchase program. He reviewed the annexation of the Lower Lagoon Valley and
various issues.
IV. SUMMARY/QUESTIONS &ANSWERS
Council discussed a variety of issues including service standards, master contracts with counties,and
development in the county.
Sandi Sigurdson, San Luis Obispo, asked if it was viable to state preferred infrastructure technology
and the timing of its implementation.
Angus McDonald,Study Session Facilitator, suggested a managed growth/team concept to establish
that program.
Pat Veesart, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about constant growth and levels of service.
Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns about changes State policy.
San Luis Obispo, stated that there was a lessening demand for commercial development in San
Luis Obispo because of increasing commercial development in other cities.
After further discussion, Mayor Pinard adjourned the meeting at 4:58 P.M.to August 31, 1993 at 5:00
P.M.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL:
Diane R. Gladwell, City Clerk
DRG.cm