The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2 - Cooper1 From:Allan Cooper < Sent:Sunday, October 08, 2017 6:40 PM To:Fowler, Xzandrea; Advisory Bodies Subject:Study Session To Review the Capital Facility Fee Program Nexus Study Attachments:110_08_17...lettertopc.pdf Dear Xzandrea - Thank you for soliciting Save Our Downtown's input on your nexus study. We commend you on the thoroughness of your report, though we're not clear how the P.C. will respond to this given its scope and complexity. In any event, would you kindly forward our letter attached below to the Planning Commission before their Wednesday, October 11, 2017 meeting? We look forward to your response as well and thanks! - Allan 10-11-2017 PC Meeting Item 2 To: SLO Planning Commission and Xzandria Fowler, Deputy Director Re: Study Session To Review the Capital Facility Fee Program Nexus Study From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: October 8, 2017 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners - After a cursory review of your October 11, 2017 staff report covering in considerable detail the rationale behind this “nexus study”, we have a number of concerns. As you can see, we have emphasized an underlying contradiction that this report puts forward that the City can absorb many more jobs in San Luis Obispo while still making progress toward the City’s overarching goal of balancing jobs with housing. The format for our response is as follows: Each quoted passage excerpted from the report is followed by a question (“Q”). Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter! “For example, with single-family residential development, a rule of thumb is that the fee burden should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit.” Q. Why the standard 15% for all developments? Aren’t some single-family residential developments more costly to the City than others (particularly with regard to transportation impacts)? “Typically impact fee programs seek to balance the need for impact fee revenues with the ability of development to pay the impact fees without affecting the pace and amount of development…The ﬁnding that new impact fees are at their maximum levels from an economic feasibility perspective indicates that there could be some projects where new impact fees could delay development until other changes in revenue or costs occur. These could include multi-family, retail and office buildings types that can be difficult to ﬁnance and require high rents and process to achieve feasibility before the additional costs of new impact fees." Q. Don’t we want to affect the pace of commercial development if job growth continues to outpace housing supply? And why is the share appropriated for affordable housing charged to retail so much less than it is to housing in general? Isn’t retail growth the primary driver behind the unmet need for affordable housing? “It estimates that the growth in the impact fee area will increase the City population by 9,900 people and will generate about 11,100 new jobs.” Q. What about insuring a jobs/housing balance? “Economic Development Strategic Plan includes key policies relative to infrastructure ﬁnancing. Policy 1.3 calls on the City to analyze infrastructure plans to ensure that they are “right sized” for the community.” Q. “Right sized” also implies adequate water capacity within an environment that will become increasingly more prone to prolonged droughts and higher temperatures. "The City will consider the use of city-based funding sources to fund public facility and infrastructure improvements that provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents and/or provide measurable economic development and ﬁscal beneﬁts.” Q. There should only be an “and” included in the sentence above which stipulates provision for the existing resident’s health, safety and welfare “or” measurable ﬁscal beneﬁts (to the City). 10-11-2017 PC Meeting Item 2 The existing resident’s health, safety and welfare should not be sacriﬁced in exchange for measurable ﬁscal beneﬁts to the City. “In evaluating whether the City will use city-based funding sources, the following evaluation criteria should be considered: (c) Head of Household Job Creation” Q. Why emphasize growth in jobs when it is clear that such job growth will outpace the housing supply? “As population grows with new development, so does demand for the administrative services provided by these facilities.” Q. Has it not occurred to City staff that SLO has a bloated administrative budget and an excessively high number of City staff/capita in comparison to CA cities of comparable size (see below)? “Jobs 52,092 (2017) 63,199 (2035) 11,107 (New Growth) 1.1% (Avg. Annual Growth Rate)” Q. The new job growth percentage (1.1%) is grossly underreported here. New job growth of 11,107 additional jobs will be on top of an estimated maximum 31,000 - not 52,092 - existing 1 jobs. Therefore, the new job growth percentage increase per year will be roughly 2% or more per year. “Maximum Development Impact Fees - Police…Retail $0.24 per square foot” Q. Why would police impact fees for retail, particularly with regards to alcohol outlets, be less per square foot than office ($0.44 per square foot)? Pertaining to Table S-2 “Comparison of Estimated Maximum with Current Fees” we concur that maximum fees should generally be increased and assessed for the ﬁrst time for new apartments and non-residential. Q. However it is not clear why Office fees @ $3.25 per square foot should exceed Retail/ Service/Institutional @ $1.77 per square foot given that the latter require more public safety, water and sewer infrastructure. _________________________________ Based on some research we did recently, it would appear that the City of San Luis Obispo has the highest number of City employees per capita among ﬁve comparably sized California cities (Azusa, Covina, Dublin & Ceres). SLO also pays its City Manager more than is paid the City Managers of the other four comparably sized cities. This is important to know in light of the City’s current $5 million deﬁcit, it’s unfunded liabilities and corresponding decrease in its According to “quickfacts” census statistics (see: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/1 table/sanluisobispocitycalifornia/HSG010216#viewtop) the total number of jobs in SLO is 25,251 and the total number of residents employed in SLO is 6,500 or see: https:// factﬁnder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml? pid=ACS_15_5YR_S2401&prodType=table for the 2010 U.S. Census civilian employed population 16 years and over: 23,352 10-11-2017 PC Meeting Item 2 reserve fund.  Unfortunately my salary data is a little iffy because the on-line information I procured wasn’t always for the same year. But the order of magnitude is telling particularly when comparing our City Manager's base salary ($212,500) with the City of Ceres ($145,084) or with the California average ($66,886). No. City Employees/Capita: Comparable Size Cities San Luis Obispo 400 employees for a population of 47,536 = 1 : 119 Azusa City 383 employees for a population of 46,360 = 1 : 121 Paso Robles 171 employees for a population of 29,838 = 1 : 175 Covina City 268 employees for a population of 47,796 = 1 : 178 Dublin City 237 employees for a population of 46,036 = 1 : 194 Ceres City 202 employees for a population of 45,417 = 1 : 225 No. City Employees/Capita: Larger Size Cities Riverside 2,500 employees for a population of 303,871 = 1 : 122 Santa Maria 559 employees for a population of 103,410 = 1 : 185 Bakersﬁeld 1,300 employees for a population of 365,000 = 1 : 281 Base Salaries Santa Maria (2014) City Manager $223,943 (total comp.: $239,337) Deputy City Mgr. $112,271 (total comp.: $140,455) Population 103,410 San Luis Obispo City Manager $212,500 (total comp.: $313,031) Assistant City Mgr. $164,718 Population 47,536 Covina City Manager $205,500 10-11-2017 PC Meeting Item 2 Assistant City Mgr. $133,034 Population 47,796 Dublin (2010) City Manager $205,008 (total comp.: $289,380) Assistant City Mgr. $176,520 (total comp.: $236,136) Population 46,036 Paso Robles City Manager $201,000 Assistant City Mgr. $164,861 Population 29,838 San Jacinto (2014) City Manager $195,000 (total comp.: $235,915) Assistant City Mgr. (total comp.: $160,365) Population 44,552 Ceres (2014) City Manager $145,084 Deputy City Mgr. $134,405 Population 45,417 Source: http://payday.revealnews.org/city/ceres/ CA Average Salary City Manager $66,886 Assistant City Mgr. $37,537 Source: https://www.indeed.com/salaries/City+Manager-Salaries,-California 10-11-2017 PC Meeting Item 2