HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 052896 Approved as Submitted
Meeting Date: 07/09/96
ATASCADERO CITY COUNCIL
MAY 28, 1996
MINUTES
6:00 P.M. - YEAR-TO-DATE FISCAL REVIEW W' Floor Club Rm.)
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the Mayor. The flag salute and
roll call were deferred to regular session. All members of the City Council were
present. The City Clerk, City Manager and Finance Director were also present.
Brad Whitty provided the staff report and responded to questions regarding
Recreation Division and Pavilion use revenues, Certificates of Participation (COP)
debts, fire impact fees and funds recovered from the Orange County Investment
Pool.
Councilmember Luna suggested that a strategy be developed for pay back from
the General Fund for monies borrowed from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund.
Andy Takata proposed that a formula be developed for paying back the
Wastewater Fund and the COP, as well as for building back up a contingency of
five percent. There was consensus to study in more detail this recommendation
once the Economic Recovery Task Force (ERTF) has submitted their final report
and the City Council has taken a look at proposals for re-organizing the City
structure.
Councilmember Johnson requested that staff do all that it can to ensure that the
City Council has the ability to adopt a budget for the 1996-97 fiscal year in a
timely manner. He asserted that it is imperative that the budget be adopted by
July 1St. The Finance Director indicated that copies of the proposed budget
schedule would be made immediately available to members of the City Council.
Public Comments:
Eric Greening, 7365 Valle, requested clarification on line items relating to the Tree
Planting Fund and Safe Routes-to-School Program.
---end of public testimony---
The Mayor announced that formal approval of the year-to-date budget adjustments
would be taken up under Item #C-1 of the Regular Business agenda.
At 6.29 p.m., the City Council adjourned to Closed Session.
CC 05/28/96
Page 1
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council met in Closed Session at 6:30 p.m. for purposes of discussions
pertaining to:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation: One (1) potential case
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: City Manager
Employee organizations: Management; Mid-Management/Professional; Fire
Captains; Firefighters; Atascadero Sergeants Service Orgn.; Atascadero
Police Officers Assoc.; Atascadero Public Safety Technicians Orgn.; Service
Employees Intl. Union; Confidential Employees
Closed Session was adjourned at 6.53 p.m. The Mayor announced that the Council
gave direction to staff.
REGULAR SESSION:
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilperson Bewley led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Bewley, Carden, Johnson, Luna and
Mayor Highland
Absent: None
Also Present: Rudy Hernandez, City Treasurer and Lee Price, City Clerk
Staff Present: Andy Takata, City Manager; Steve DeCamp, City Planner;
Art Montandon, City Attorney; Brady Cherry, Director of
Community Services; Brad Whitty, Finance Director; Sgt.
Jeff Fredericks, Police Department and Capt. Fred Motlo,
Fire Department
CC 05/28/96
Page 2
PRESENTATIONS:
1. ECONOMIC RECOVERY TASK FORCE (ERTF) REPORT &
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Staff recommendation: Receive report)
Brad Whitty introduced Kathy Pierson, Chairperson of the ERTF, who provided a
summary of the committee's report and recommendations. She noted that
included in the packet are some individual minority reports and indicated that the
Task Force is requesting that the City Council agree to a joint workshop at which
time the committee can expand on the recommendations and respond to
questions.
Councilmember Bewley asked why there was more than one report in the packet
and commented that he was under the impression that the various community
groups represented would provide their input through their representative.
Councilmember Luna remarked that he appreciates the additional public comment
and spoke in support of the joint workshop, as suggested by the Task Force.
Councilmember Carden pointed out that he and Councilmember Johnson,
appointed as Council delegates to the Task Force, had been asked by the Task
Force to not participate once it broke into sub-committees. Because of this, he
explained, he was recommending that he and Councilmember Johnson be given
the opportunity to meet and provide input to the whole Council. Brief discussion
ensued
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine, 4850 Potrero Road, spoke in favor of the concept of citizens
involved in the process of reviewing the City's budget on an annual basis. He
submitted his own minority report (see Exhibit A) and summarized some of his
recommendations.
William Zimmerman, 6225 Lomitas Road, commented that it is important for the
whole City Council to meet with the Task Force so that a full exchange can be
achieved.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Carden clarified that his recommendation does not mean to
circumvent a full City Council meeting and emphasized that he is requesting
approval for Councilmember Johnson and himself to meet and provide input to the
full Council. Following discussion, the City Council agreed to sanction a meeting
of the Council sub-committee (Councilmembers Carden and Johnson) to be held
before the workshop. In addition, the date of Monday, June 10r' at 7:00 p.m.
was selected as the date for which the City Council will meet in a joint workshop
with the ERTF.
CC 05/28/96
Page 3
A. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 14, 1996
(City Clerk's recommendation: Approve)
2. CITY TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1996
(City Treasurer's recommendation: Review & Accept)
3. RESOLUTION NO. 37-96 - Authorizing the execution of an agreement with
Jack R. Bridwell for weed abatement services
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
4. RESOLUTION NO. 39-96 - Authorizing application for a multi-agency traffic
safety/enforcement grant
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
By mutual consent, the City Council continued the Minutes of May 14r' (Item #A-
1) to the next meeting.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson seconded by Councilmember Luna
to approve the Consent Calendar, Items #A-2 through 4;
motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT AUTO
REPAIR IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN THE DOWNTOWN (Cont'd from
5/14/96)
(Planning Commission/Staff recommendation: Deny)
Steve DeCamp provided the staff report and recommendation to deny the appeal.
He emphasized that the recommendation is based upon the fact that the proposed
use (auto repair) is not an allowable use under the General Plan (specifically the
Downtown Master Plan) and is the same or similar to the existing use of auto
sales. The City Attorney advised that the Council, acting in a quasi-judicial
capacity, shall hear the evidence and, based upon the facts, uphold or deny the
appeal. He added that the burden of proof is on the appellant and advised that,
should the Council act to deny the appeal, it direct staff to bring back a resolution
for the Consent Calendar in two weeks establishing the findings for denial.
Council questions followed regarding past uses of the site. Steve DeCamp
reported that although a pole sign application was approved for AAMCO
Transmission in 1991, staff research of records has revealed that no Conditional
Use Permit for the business or business license was ever issued.
Councilmember Johnson commented that it appears that there was some intent to
do auto repairs at the site and pondered whether or not the City, because it did
not require AAMCO to discontinue business, gave defacto approval. The City
Attorney explained that, in the view of the courts, if a business is operated
illegally, it cannot claim a legal right. In addition, he added, no right to use the
property for a use different than the established legal use can be claimed.
CC 05/28/96
Page 4
Public Comments:
Bruce Berger, representing American Classics, spoke in support of the appeal and
emphasized that the owners are not requesting a change in the Downtown Master
Plan. He asserted that the building has always been used for a auto sales and
repair. He contended that AAMCO Transmission operated its repair business for
2'/2 years before American Classics acquired the property and explained that auto
repairs were done in addition to sales. He stated that if the appeal is upheld, the
owners will be denied all economic use of the property. Councilmember Luna
asked Mr. Berger if he had any evidence that AAMCO Transmission had a
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Berger indicated that although he does not have hard
evidence to prove that it did, but all the information that he has gathered, they
did. Councilmember.Bewley asked the speaker how long AAMCO was in
business. Mr. Berger commented that the business's grand opening was in 1986
and recalled that the business had ceased to operate in November of 1988.
Ken Craig, co-owner American Classics, noted that when he acquired the building,
there was a valid business license hanging on the wall. He testified that American
Classics has, since they acquired the property, repaired automobiles for re-sale.
Councilmember Johnson asked staff if they had researched the records to
determine if AAMCO Transmissionhad a business license. Steve DeCamp
reported that the records search revealed only one business license at the site for
that time period. The license was in the name of Gayle Sharp for a used car lot,
he stated. Mr. DeCamp, responding to inquiry from the Mayor, also reported that
staff, after researching Planning Commission agendas and minutes, have
determined that no Conditional Use Permit application was ever approved.
Michael LeSage, attorney for the appellants, spoke in support of the appeal and
argued that his clients acquired the property assuming that the existing repair
business was a legal, allowable use. He questioned why the City would issue a
sign permit to a business conducting its operations illegally and concluded that his
clients have a vested right because of the fact that the chain of use has not been
broken. Mr. LeSage to clarify passed out some photos representing some
business uses in the downtown area of the City of Pasadena and contended that
different types of business uses in the downtown can successfully be blended
without conflict.
Councilmember Johnson noted that there appears to be arguments: 1) change the
zoning for the Downtown Master Plan or, 2) the auto repair use has operated
perpetually; he asked the speaker to clarify which argument he was supporting.
Mr. LeSage stated that he is not asserting that the Downtown Master Plan be
changed, but rather that there was either a use permit for the AAMCO repair
business that was passed on, or that there was justifiable reliance on the part of
his clients upon that use.
Councilmember Luna asked why it was that the owners of American Classics
applied for a auto/mobilehome and vehicle dealers/suppliers business license,
instead of a auto repair license. Mr. LeSage explained that repairs are an essential
part of selling classic cars and asserted that after the business license was applied
for, the Zoning Ordinance was changed. From that point forward, he concluded,
his clients had a right to continue with the same repair business into the future.
CC 05/28/96
Page 5
He added that the chain had not been broken because auto repairs conducted by
American Classics was consistent with what AAMCO Transmission had been
doing. Councilmember Luna remarked that the owner did not make it clear to the
City that he would be doing auto repairs, based upon his application to do
business.
Responding to inquiry from Council, Steve DeCamp reported that the land use
definition has not changed since the time American Classics took over the site. He
pointed out that the business license application filed was for classic car sales.
Mr. LeSage reiterated that the City issued a permit for a sign and the issue of the
use permit was never raised.
Sherry Nunes, Nunes Auto Body (potential buyer), presented an overview of the
project that is being proposed for the site. She exhibited an architectural
rendering of the building improvements and reported that the body shop, highly
regulated by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD), is a clean, professional operation.
Nick Gilman, architect, reported that he has looked at the property to determine if
there are alternative uses for the site and suggested that there are few.
Richard Summers, local real estate broker, spoke in support of the proposed
project. He encouraged the City Council to work together with the owners and
avoid allowing another commercial building in the downtown to sit empty.
Gene Humphrey, resident, urged the City Council to let the building be used as it
has been used since the 1920's.
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Johnson commented that he suspects the building does have
limited use and pointed out that it could be argued that the City gave defacto
approval for auto repair. He shared concern that the City maybe subject to an
inverse condemnation suit and suggested that the matter be sent back to staff for
additional research.
Art Montandon, responding to inquiry from Council, advised that the standard for
success in a claim of inverse condemnation is one where there is an improper
regulation by a governmental entity against private property and it results in
removing all economic viability of the property. He commented that there is, in his
opinion, economically viable use for the property and that such a suit would not be
successful. Mr. Montandon also explained the legal concepts of estoppel,
entitlement and detrimental reliance.
Councilmember Luna asked if Nunes Auto Body were to apply for a business
license for vehicle dealer and supplier if it would be allowable. Steve DeCamp
replied that vehicle dealer and supplier use is a legally established non-conforming
use and clarified that the request for auto repair is a shift from one land use
category to another.
Councilmember Carden asked staff if the Volvo dealership, once at the intersection
of El Camino Real and West Mall, was forced to move out of the downtown.
CC 05/28/96
Page 6
Steve DeCamp indicated that the use had been illegally established and never
licensed. After several years and court action, the use was moved further south
on EI Camino Real, he reported.
Councilmember Johnson requested clarification of staff's position. Steve DeCamp
replied that staff would recommend, if Council chooses to approve the use, that
the General Plan be modified. He added that staff is having a difficult time making
the chaining argument and do not see the facts as the appellants do. Mayor
Highland remarked that while there are not many uses for the building, he does
not want to continue a use that is not considered compatible with the Downtown
Master Plan.
Councilmember Bewley commented that when a business wants to come in to the
downtown and renovate a building so that it can become a viable business, the
City should work with the applicants to ensure success. If the downtown dies, he
said, so does the downtown plan.
Councilmember Johnson asked the City Attorney if Council can uphold the appeal
without changing the zoning. Art Montandon advised that the Council would have
to make findings that AAMCO was legal when it operated on the site, that the use
for automobile repair continued through the use by American Classics and that the
new project would be a legal non-conforming use. He recommended that the City
- Council continue the hearing and direct staff to go back through the record.
Mayor Highland pointed out that if the Council moves to deny the appeal, the
same findings would have to be made based upon the same record. The City
Attorney reported that the court, if litigation ensues, will look at whether or not
there is enough substantial evidence to support the findings.
MOTION: By Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember
Bewley to continue the public hearing until the next council
meeting; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
Recess called at 9:12 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
Andy Takata reported that during the break the appellants agreed to continue the
hearing until June 250 to allow adequate time for research. The Mayor so ordered
the hearing continued until said date.
2. WEED ABATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING
(Staff recommendation: Hear protests, and authorize Fire Chief to abate
weeds)
Capt. Motlo provided the brief staff report. There were no questions or comments
from the City Council
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine commented that there remains a conflict between the City's
ordinance and State law as it relates to brush removal in and near the riparian
zone. He suggested that staff address this matter and seek some compromise.
CC 05/28/96
Page 7
---end of public testimony---
Councilmember Luna inquired whether there were any areas in the City that have
been declared very high hazard severity zones. Capt. Motlo reported that the
former Fire Marshal, Mark Latham, in conjunction with the California Department
of Forestry (CDF), had conducted a survey identifying those areas that are high
hazard areas. Three classifications (or levels of hazard) were identified, he
reported. Councilmember Luna said that, according to new State law, the State
Fire Marshal shall identify areas as very high hazard severity zones and the
information shall be transmitted to all local agencies with identified high hazard
severity zones. That information, he continued, shall be made available for public
review and be presented in a format understandable and accessible to the general
public, including maps. Councilmember Luna concluded that this information
would be best disseminated at a public hearing and remarked that he has not yet
seen any of the relating documents. The City Manager indicated that he would
check with the Fire Chief to determine how the information will be distributed and
whether or not a public hearing is required.
Brief discussion following regarding the abatement of properties within the City
that are owned by the County of San Luis Obispo and Southern Pacific Railroad.
Mayor Highland asserted that the weed abatement contractor should be instructed
to go ahead and clear the properties and, further, that the City should bill those
entities for the work. Councilmember Luna suggested that CalTrans property also
be handled in this way. Capt. Motlo Fred reported that last year the department
put CalTrans on notice that they are not only responsible for abatement, but are
responsible for any necessary fire suppression costs as well .
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden seconded by Councilmember Luna
to authorize the Fire Chief to abate weeds; motion passed
unanimously.
3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95004 (Lanini/Messer)
A. Resolution No. 29-96 - Re-designating certain real property between
Old Santa Rosa Rd., West Frontage Rd., Atascadero Ave. and Portola
Rd. from Moderate Density Single Family to High Density Single
Family (GPA #95004: Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Adopt)
B. Ordinance No. 305 - Amending Official Zoning Map 19 by rezoning all
that real property located between Old Santa Rosa Rd., West
Frontage Rd., AtascaderoAve. and Portola Rd. presently zoned
Residential Single Family with a one acre minimum lot size (RSF-Y) to
Residential Single Family with a one-half acre minimum lot size (RSF-
X) (ZC #95007: Lanini)
(Planning Commission recommendation: Motion to waive reading in
full and introduce on first reading, by title only)
Steve DeCamp provided the staff report and recommendations to approve.
Responding to brief Council questions, Mr. DeCamp reported that staff's
preliminary review, while based upon planning principals and not a specific project,
CC 05/28/96
Page 8
reveals that any subsequent subdivision could be served by a City street. He
added that the property owner has not indicated any plans to subdivide at this
time.
There was no public testimony.
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden, seconded by Councilmember
Johnson to approve Resolution No. 29-96; motion passed
unanimously.
MOTION: By Councilmember Carden, seconded by Councilmember
Johnson to waive reading in full and introduce on first reading
by title Ordinance No. 305; motion passed 5:0 by roll call vote.
C. REGULAR BUSINESS:
1. RESOLUTION NO. 41-96 - Approving amendments to the 1995/96 adopted
budget (Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Brad Whitty reported that the Council had met in an open study session at 6:00
p.m. to review the budget. The resolution, he added, was formal approval for
budget adjustments outlined in the staff report.
Public Comments:
Rush Kolemaine proclaimed that the public had been given no opportunity to
review the budget amendments. Councilmember Luna pointed out that there had
been two meetings properly noticed regarding this matter: Tonight's session and
the previorisly-held Finance Committee meeting.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Bewley
to adopt Resolution No. 41-96; motion passed 5:0 by roll call
vote.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 40-96 - Adopting a City of Atascadero Mission Statement
(Staff recommendation: Adopt)
Andy Takata provided the staff report and recommendation to adopt. Mayor
Highland suggested that the word, "friendly" be incorporated into the fourth
"employee value" outlined in the mission statement.
MOTION: By Councilmember Luna, seconded by Councilmember Johnson
to adopt Resolution No. 46-96, as amended; motion passed
unanimously.
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS (The following represent standing committees.
Informative status reports were given, as follows.):
1. S.L.O. Regional Transit Authority - Councilmember Carden reported that
SLORTA and two members of the Board of Supervisors are scheduled to
meet on June 10" regarding CCAT's Route 9.
CC 05/28/96
Page 9
2. City/School Committee- Councilmember Johnson announced that the
committee will meet on May 30" at 1 :30 p.m. at the School District office.
3. Economic Round Table - Councilmember Johnson reported on the meeting
of May the 15th, at which time presentations by Ed Weaterhby and the
Economic Vitality Corporation were received.
4. Air Pollution Control District - The Mayor reported that the district had met
on May 22"d.
5. North County Council - Mayor Highland indicated that the next Executive
Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, June 20th at the Lake Park
Pavilion (Note: meeting later rescheduled for June 27th). The Mayor
mentioned that it has been suggested that the NCC meet quarterly, rather
than monthly.
6. Ad Hoc Regional Water Management Committee - Mayor Highland
commented that the next meeting will be June 5"
E. INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION AND/OR ACTION:
1. City Council
Councilmember Bewley requested a status report on revisions to the skateboard
ordinance. The City Manager indicated that staff hopes to bring the ordinance to
the Council on June 11 th
Mayor Highland reported that negotiations have begun with mobilehome park
residents and owners in Rancho Del Bordo and Hilltop Manor mobilehome parks.
He noted that the proposed rent stabilization ordinance is on hold for thirty days
while negotiations continue.
2. City Clerk: Schedule interviews for Board of Directors, Community Services
Foundation
Lee Price reported that three applications had been received and requested that
the Council consider meeting at 6:00 p.m. on June 11th to interview the
candidates. The City Council agreed to conduct the interviews on that date.
At 9:58 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the Atascadero
City Council will be Tuesday, June 11, 1996 at 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES RECORDED AND PREPARED BY:
LEE PRICE, C.M.0
CITY CLERK
CC 05/28/96
Page 10
Attachment: Exhibit A (Kolemaine)
CC 05/28/96
Page 11
_. CC5/28/96
EXHIBIT A
t
I R. S. Kolemaine/P.o.Box 199o/Aws=dero/cAs3423-1seor(w5)46s-a2oo
TO: Atascadero City Council
DATE: 28 May 1996
SUB,1: ERTF Report, omissions
Gentlemen: _
Attached FYI is a copy of a memo sent to Mr. Brad Witty on 15 Aug.96 in which, as a member r a g
of the ERTF,`I asked Mr.Witty to provide better information regarding potential funding',sources for the'
=7`
City,of Atascadero;as these have been identified by the League of California Cities in thea "California; '
�Munici al Revenue Sources Handbook" ubhshed.in,1995
"c,• p p
Mw4 1
' In this handbook, there are`ovef,30 regular sources of revenue'aisted, plus" ad iffi— SV
''a� ` • ' "innovative" revenue source§s`few of any oEw-bich appear to have been"revieweii an" 6r''consideied
. . the ERTF
+ t
y ..
Notwithstanding Mrs Wittys gyfailure4 to- respond;°°+to this memorandum requestug betterx a t
�. .:.�.
identification of any that might currently be used`as municipal revenue sources for` A.tascaderort..occurs
to me that the ERTF could have better spent;some.time in examining r at least some''of;these-proven" I
sources of revenue during its term of service., would like to call your attention especially to the items : k
listed on the third page of this memo,which refers to fuller explanations described on pp 92-112 of the
above document.
In view of the ERTF decision(or failure)to not make recommendations for any meaningful new
revenues for the City, I hope the City Council will obtain the information requested froni Mr. Witty and
conduct a careful review of these in an effort to,if possible,,enhance current City revenues`in the future
In addition,I would like to recommend the City Council give careful consideration of the lack of
any reliable long term forecasting effort as regards to tracking anticipated revenues and budget priorities
At the least, an on-going five year planning program covering the City's fiscal affairs would appear to be
necessary to bring order out of chaos and provide the Conch and citizens with reassurance regarding
these matters.
Respectfay, {"
f
Rush Kolemaine
t ENCL
.. f
01
R. S. Kolemaine/P.o.Box i 990 i Abscadeno/cA 93423.1990 (eo5)46s-a2oo
TO: Brad Witty
DATE: 15 Aug 95
SUBJ: Identification of City revenue sources
Brad:
F
In reviewing the current(FY 95/96)proposed City budget along with the various materials you have collected for
{ the benefit of the Economic Recovery Task Force I have been struck by the difficulty in identifying which sources of
Atascadero revenues relate to those identified in the League of California Cities"California Municipal Revenue Sources
Handbook".
Specifically,the sources and authority for the 41 funds identified in the City budget,however obvious to those
who normally deal with City financing,are unclear or uncertain.Likewise,specific dollar amounts currently obtained
through these various sources is also unclear in the materials provided task force members to date.
As a means to clarify this information,in order to make more rational judgments regarding other potential
revenue sources and to better evaluate current City expenditures,it would be helpful to have these tied together with some
better clarity.As a simple means of accomplishing this with the least impact on staff time,could you identify revenue
sources(as listed in the"handbook")from which the City derivestdoes not derive revenues at this time and the dollar
t amounts anticipated or budgeted in the FY 95/96 City budget,and some indication as which of these are dedicated funds?
To assist in this,I have listed those in the handbook most possibly relevant to Atascadero in the attached,with
space for filling in the necessary data. I am enclosing a floppy of this to(hopefully)eliminate hand copying and
photocopying for distribution to all other task force members who may find this useful.
Rush Kolemaine
cc: Pearson
Bewley
Carden
Highland
Johnson
Luna
4
15 Aug 95
e Page 3/3
City Fund
SOURCES #(s) Tithe $(FY 95/96) Notes
Public/Private Development Fees
Redevelopment Agency Business/City Grants........................ ............................... ................................... .........
Public(Private/SBA Grants..................................................... ............ .................... .................................... .........
UrbanStructure Program...................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
Multi-source Development Funding....................................... ......... .......... .......
.. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .
Redevelopment Agency Bonding........................................... ............ ................... .......................
Irmovative Developer/ImpactFees
Parking Deficiency Fee.....................................
.................................. ................... ................:................... ........
TransitImpact Fee................................................................. ............ ................... .................................... ........
Child Care................................ ............. .................... ......... ............... ................................ .......
..... ..... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .
PublicArt........................................................................................... ................... .................................... ..........
Marketing ofAssets
Saleof Memorabilia.............................................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
"Rental"of Services............................................................................ ................... .................................... ..........
MarketingCity Heritage........................................................ ............ ................... ................................... .........
Commercial Use of Public Facilities................................................... ................... .................................... .........
Film/TV Rental of Facilities................................................. ........ ................ ................................ ......
Shared Municipal Services................................................... ................................. ................................ ......
ComputerSoftware Sales....................................................... ............. ................... .................................... .........
TrainingMaterials Sales........................................................ ............ ................... .................................... .........
t Lease/Sale Real Estate........................................................... ............ ................... ................................... .........
I Recovery ofService Cost
VINInformation Fee............................................................. ............ .................... .................................... .........
UnauthorizedSign Removal Fee............................................ ............. ................... .................................... ..........
VoluntaryCat Licensing....................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
MedicalDispatch Fees........................................................... ............. ................... .................................... ..........
DisturbanceService Fee......................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Police and Fire Special Benefit Districts................................ ............ .................... .................................... .........
Non-resident Service Charges......... .. ......................... ......... .......... ................................ .......
FeeReview.......................................................................... ......... ................ ................................ ......
Recovery of Bond Issue Administration Charges................... ............ ................... ................................... ........
Cost Recovery for Police,Fire and Public Works.................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Cost recovery for DUI Accidents and Arrests......................... ................................ ................................... ..........
CostRecovery for Accident Clean-up..................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
CostRecovery for Arson Fires............................................... ............ .................... .................................... .........
MapCheck fee....................................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
OtherFees(see p. 108).......................................................... ............................... .................................... .........
Revenue from other Sources
In-Lieu Taxes and Franchise Fees.......................................... ............ ................... .................................... ..........
CostAvoidance Reserve......................................................... ............ ................... .................................... .........
Revenues for Park Concerts,Events/Concessions................. .
............ ................... .................................... ..........
Matching Funds for Cultural Arts Programs........................................ ................ ................................ .......
Adopt-a-Wall Graffiti Removal.............................................. ............ ................... .................................... .........
Business License Tax Equity.................................................. ............ ...................
.................................... .........
GrantApplications................................................................ ............ .................... .................................... .........
Utility Payment Station.......................................................... ............I...................
................................. ..........
"Gift"Catalog ................................................................... ............i .................................... .........
i
SURVEY OF ATASCADERO 15 Aug 95
REVENUE SOURCES r i pa Page V3
City Fund
1 SOURCES #(s) Title $(FY 95/96) Notes
GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES
General Taxes
Sales&Use Tax.................................................................. ........... .................... ................................... .........
BusinessLicenseTax............................................................... ........... ................... .................................... .........
UtilityUser's Tax................................................................... ........... ................... .................................... .........
Transient Occupancy(Bed)Tax............................................. ........... ................... .................................... .........
Documentary Transfer(Real Property Transfer)Tax......................... ................... .................................... .........
AdmissionsTax.................................................................... ................................ ................................ .......
ParkingTax............................................................................ ........... ................... .................................... .........
Special Taxes
MelloRoos Community Facilities Tax................................... ........... ................... ................................... .........
Special Tax for Library Services............................................. ........... ................... ................................... .........
ParcelTaxes........................................................................... .............................. ................................... .........
Special Tax for Police and Fire Services.................................. ........... .................... .................................... .........
STATE-ADMINISTERED REVENUE SOURCES
MotorVehicle License Fee...................................................... ........... .................... .................................... .........
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fee............................................ .................... .................................... .........
GasolineTax.......................................................................... ........... .................... ................................... ........
Reimbursement for State-mandated Costs............................... ........... ................... ................................... .........
Homeowners'Property Tax Relief........................................... ........... ................... ................................... .........
Williamson Act and Open Space Subvention.........................
.......... .................... ................................... .........
Tideland Revenue...................................................................I
........... ................... ................................... .........
OTMR INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
�y. Federal................................................................................. ....... ................ ................................ ......
State..................................... ............................................. ....... ................ .............................................
County.................................................................................. ................................ ................................ ...
Other........................................ ....................................... ........ .............. .......
..... .. .. .. .... . .. .. . .
LOCALLY RAISED REVENUE
BenefitAssessments................................................................ ........... .................... .................................... .........
Licencesand Permits.............................................................. ........... .................... ................................... .........
Franchises............................................................................. ....... ................ ..............................................
CurrentService Charges......................................................... ........... ................... ................................... .........
InvestmentEarnings............................................................... ............ ................... ................................... ..........
DevelopmentImpact Fees....................................................... ........... ................... ................................... ..........
Rents,Royalties and Concessions............................................ ........... ................... .................................... .........
Fines,Forfeitures and Penalties............................................... ........... .................... .....................
INNOVATIVE REVENUE SOURCES
Aggressive Collection Programs
TaxAudits.............................................................................. ........... ................... .
7 Using Small Claims Courts.............................. ................................
. ....................... .................................... ........
Collecting from Habitual Offenders......................................... ........... ..................... ..............................................
Increased Business License Collections................................. ................................ ................................ ...
Mergers Signal Property Tax Reassessments........................... ........... ................... .................................... .........
Collection Referral and Interest Fees.........................
Treble Damages on NSF Checks............................................. ........... ................... ..
AmnestyPrograms.................................................................. ........... .................... . .............................. .
r