HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2015 Item 13, CodronCOUNCIL MEETING: — ZV IS
ITEM NO.: 13
Council Memorandum
L
DATE: December 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
DEC 01 2015
SUBJECT: Agenda Item #13 ( Fiero Lane /Clarion Court Interim Service Agreement)
Staff has received a request from a Councilmember for the following information and is
distributing it to all Council members regarding the subject project.
Questions /Comments
1. The resolution and MOU should refer to "anticipated" not ' possible" annexation
Response: This change (substituting "anticipated" for "possible" would be consistent
with past Council direction regarding annexation phasing if the Council directs staff to
use the term "anticipated." The term "possible" is intended to reflect the discretionary
nature of the Council's decision on the annexation, which will come back to the Planning
Commission and City Council for review at a later date.
2. Why are we not doing the LAFCO resolution at this time?
Response: The longer timeframe associated with annexation, and the issues concerning
water quality of the three wells /water treatment system that serves the area, prompted the
request to phase this process beginning with interim water and sewer service. Allowing
interim service provides the applicant with a reliable water source while going through
phase 2 of the process, which includes Council review /approval of the proposed
annexation, LAFCO approval, and infrastructure improvements.
3. Why would we charge them the city water rate before annexation?
Response: The intent of the process is to achieve General Plan objectives by annexing an
property within the Airport Area. The double -rate that is normally charged to properties
outside the City was identified by Fiero Lane property owners as a significant
impediment to a successful annexation for many reasons. This is a policy decision for the
City Council.
Fiero Lane /Clarion Court (11/30/2015)
Page 2
4. Provision of city utilities will significantly increase the value of their property, so why
should we give them this incentive?
Response: The provision of urban services do increase property values, as well as local
agency tax revenues. While the intent of the process is to achieve General Plan objectives
by annexing this property within the Airport Area, the City would also achieve a positive
fiscal impact associated with the tax sharing agreement to be negotiated with the County
(for example, under our standard agreement, the City would receive 100% of the existing
and future sales tax generated in the annexation area), as well as the new development
impact fee revenue anticipated in the water and sewer funds. As discussed in the Council
Agenda Report, annexation and development of the land in the Airport Area Specific
Plan is projected to create a net positive fiscal impact to the City.
S. What happens after three years if they have not annexed? ....What if the water company
goes bankrupt and we have no secured interest in the land - -would the bonds cover the
dollar amount of the city investment in their property?
Response: This question touches on a few different issues. First, Fiero Lane Water
Company is submitting deposits to cover the City's costs and expenses related to the
development and implementation of the MOA and subsequent annexation (See section 1).
If Fiero Lane Water Company is not proceeding in accordance with the "Annexation
Task List and Schedule," then the City has the right to terminate interim water and sewer
service once the requisite notice has been given, without any liability whatsoever. If the
Fiero Lane Water Company goes bankrupt or if there is another reason to terminate
interim water or sewer service, improvement and performance bonds will be in place to
cover the City's costs of physically removing the interim water and sewer hook -ups in
order to terminate such service (See section 6). The amount of the bond is to be
determined by the Director of Utilities and can be increased or decreased over time.
6. Do the property owners also own the water company? Do we have copies of the written
agreements to annex from the property owners?
Response: Yes, the property owners also own the Fiero Lane Water Company. The
applicant provided documentation of majority property owners indicating support of the
anticipated annexation based on the terms presented to the City Council (also discussed
in MOA section 5a).
7. Outside of lost anticipated revenue, what is the fiscal downside to letting them stay in the
county and run out of water?
Response: There is both a fiscal downside and policy objective downside to delaying
annexation of the Fiero Lane and Clarion Court properties. This direction would likely
delay other phases of the Airport Area annexation, and thus delay the ability of the City
to realize the net revenue increases expected from annexation and development of Airport
Area land within City limits. From a policy standpoint, it is the intent of the City to
incorporate all of the Airport Area within City limits to ensure the proper implementation
of development standards and achieve plan goals for job creation, quality of
Fiero Lane /Clarion Court (11/30/2015)
Page 3
infrastructure, and to eliminate the potential for more fringe development adjacent to City
limits.
Please contact Michael Codron (iiicodron slocity.or) or Marcus Carloni
(mcarloni a7slocity.org) should there be any questions.
\ \chstore7\ groups \publicworks\ permits\ streetaddresses - energov \pl -annx- 1166- 2015\council hearing 12.1.15 \agenda correspondence
response \agenda correspondence response 12.1.15 l.docx