The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/17/1991, C-4 - COUNTY DEVELOPMENT FEES IIII ` �/ 4Ii�I��►►�I411IIIIIIII�IIulll V, T MEETING DA I►i�u►I city or san lug s OBISPO F/ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: _ FROM: Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrative Officer / SUBJECT: County Development Fees CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a letter to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors regarding proposed countywide development fees. DISCUSSION On August 27, 1991 representatives from the County briefed the City Council on a proposed program for the implementation of countywide development fees. These fees are intended to be assessed not only in the unincorporated areas, but in cities as well. At the conclusion of the August 27 briefing, the City Council expressed its opposition to the fees as presented, and directed staff to draft a letter to the Board of Supervisors outlining the Council ' s concerns. Staff is recommending that the Council send the attached letter to the 'Board for their consideration in advance of their September 24 meeting. The countywide fee issue is expected to be before the Board on that date. ATTACHMENT Proposed letter d/oodev 1 1 �� I�IIIIIII�I III IIIIII II III�III��II Cl of SA1 luisjSEEMS oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 September 17, 1991 David Blakely, Chairman Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Chairman Blakely: Over the last year, Councilmember Penny Rappa has represented our City Council on the "City-County Participation Group" to provide input on the County's "Public Facilities Financing Plan', which is intended to impose development fees in the County and within the boundaries of cities. From the outset our City has expressed substantial reservations about the underlying premise of these fees, the cost-benefit of imposing them within the City, and the impact of the of. on County urbanization. The City's initial position was that the County should implement whatever fees it deemed appropriate in the unincorporated areas; however, we could not support the implementation of fees for countywide or regional facilities within the boundaries of our City. Nearly one year later, after numerous meetings with the County and other cities on this topic, and after a thorough briefing by County staff on August 27, the City Council's position has not changed. The purpose of this letter is to share with the Board of Supervisors our major concerns in advance of the Board's consideration of the fee program on September 24. First, we do not agree with the underlying premise that it is desirable for the County to reach within the boundaries of cities for revenues to support capital facility responsibilities traditionally held by the County. While it may be true that development within cities imposes a requirement on some County facilities, it is also true that development within the County imposes demands on cities. Yet, cities cannot impose development fees in the unincorporated areas to help mitigate the cost of county development. Further, the County operation itself imposes demands on city facilities and services, such as roadways, police protection, fire services, and wastewater treatment. This is especially true in San Luis Obispo. The cost assumed by our City in providing such services are in no way mitigated by the County. Based on our recent experience with the SB 2557 issue, the fact that the City does assume a share of County driven costs is scarcely even recognized by County government. Thus, we do not feel that the proposed fee program will bring any greater equity or clarity to the financial relationship existing between cities and the County. Instead, we believe it will add more complexity, additional bureaucracy, and minimal benefit to cities. e-f-02- Page 2 Blakely September 17, 1991 It would be more straightforward for the cities and the County to assume individual responsibility for funding needed facilities within our respective borders. In situations where there are facilities which equally benefit the County and a city (e.g., regional parks or libraries), the County and the involved city should work together to develop or improve that specific facility. Our cooperation in constructing the City-County Library and the Palm Street Parking Structure are excellent examples of such joint efforts. Our City would be very interested in working with the County to jointly fund additional improvements in Laguna Lake Park, which has been recognized as a "shared benefit" facility in the Recht, Hausrath & Associates study. These kinds of discrete efforts allow both the City and the County easier and more direct control over project priority and timing. Another point which our City Council would like to emphasize is that the impacts of development in the unincorporated areas can be mitigated simply by restricting the amount of development which occurs in unincorporated areas. Ventura County, for example, is guided by the "Guidelines for Orderly Development" which establishes the groundrule that urbanlike development should occur only within the boundaries of incorporated cities. If such a guideline were followed more rigorously in this County, there would be less of a need for development fees in the County. The San Luis Obispo City Council is concerned that countywide development fees will further encourage the urbanization of the unincorporated areas. Our City, like every other city in San Luis Obispo County, is currently in the process of updating and/or considering new development fees. To this point, our decisions on such fees have been neither easy nor unanimous because we have had to weigh the benefits of such fees against other concerns, such as affordable housing. These decisions are difficult despite the fact that the projects identified for support are of significant and direct benefit to the residents of San Luis Obispo. For example, the water and wastewater development fees recently approved by the Council will be utilized to expand the Salinas Reservoir, to improve our water treatment plant, and to complete the State mandated $35 million upgrade of our wastewater treatment plant. Conversely, after nearly one year of considering the County's proposed development fees, we can find no projects of comparable direct benefit to City residents. For the above reasons, the San Luis Obispo City Council cannot support the proposed County development fees at this time. The soonest that we would be willing to reconsider such fees is in approximately one year, after we have fully evaluated and decided upon our own fee proposals. In the interim, if the City is to reconsider such fees, a significant amount of additional information is needed. Attached to this letter are several questions intended to acquire this information. �'�f-3 Page 3 Blakely September 17, 1991 In closing, the City of San Luis Obispo supports regional cooperation in funding public services and facilities when such services and facilities are clearly a joint responsibility of mutual benefit. Our City provides the largest contribution to the Regional Transit System of any city in the County, yet the vast majority of system users are from the unincorporated areas and other cities. We have also played a substantial leadership role in the current regional solid waste planning effort by providing an extra measure of staff assistance through the support of our Solid Waste Coordinator (a position unique within San Luis Obispo County). We have collectively provided low cost parking for County juries, and are currently working with County staff to jointly explore parking and other issues relative to the County's space needs. In contrast to jail booking fees, we currently provide law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas at no cost. Therefore, our lack of support for these fees should not be taken as a lack of support for regional cooperation; however, such cooperation must be based upon an equitable sharing of responsibility and a mutual sense of benefit. We would like you to extend our appreciation to County staff for the August 27 briefing and urge the Board to consider the points outlined in this letter on September 24. Sincerely, Ron Dunin MAYOR c: Mayors, Cities of San Luis Obispo County f\blake CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO QUESTIONS REGARDING COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FEES 1. All local cities are in the process of updating and/or adopting development fees to support specific projects within city boundaries. The cities feel that it would be preferable to complete these "AB 1600 processes" and consider countywide development fees afterward, and within the context of the full scope of potential fees (in approximately one year). What compelling reason exists for the cities to take action on County fees prior to that time? 2. Will the participation of cities in any countywide development fee program be considered as an "offset" to the County's assessment of SB 2557 fees? If not, why not? The cities believe that countywide support of such fees would be consistent with the cost sharing goals identified by the Coalition for Cooperative Government Task Force, of which the County is a part. 3. Will the .implementation of countywide development fees inappropriately encourage urbanization in the unincorporated areas? Basically, will the fees be growth inducing? 4. The study does not clearly explain the approach to programming and funding regional projects. How is this proposed to be handled? What direct role can cities expect to play in determining the timing of projects and assuring the allocation of county impact fee revenues toward their completion? So far, this has not been specifically outlined. 5. Does the County envision entering into enforceable agreements between the cities and the County to assure completion of regional projects consistent with established timeframes and original project concepts? 6. Who will establish project priorities for countywide facilities, such as jails, regional courts, sheriff substations, etc.? Will cities have a say, or will this be through Board action only? 7. What is the rationale for a County overhead charge? In addition, if cities are to collect the fees, why should the County retain 1.5% of the proposed 2.5% administrative fee? 8. Can individual cities "pick and choose" fee support for certain countywide facilities, but exclude others? For example, a city may not wish to support the proposed 189 vehicles to support County general government operations - can vehicles be excluded from the fee cost computation for such a city? Can a city which opposes the construction of a new County hospital exclude that cost component from the countywide fee? 9. Assuming an individual city can choose to support the imposition of a "single purpose" fee (e.g., for libraries), will the County agree to a sunset provision to be effective upon project completion? Page Two Development Fees 10. If cities choose not to adopt the fee program, will this affect the County's approach to other city-county issues? For example, annexations, General Plan updates, review of EIR's for projects within City boundaries? With regard to the latter, does the County intend to litigate against EIR's if the County fee program is not adopted by cities? 11. If cities do not adopt the fee program, can the County legally impose the fees on cities? If counties can impose the fees, is it the intention of the County of San Luis Obispo to do so? \cty-cnri