HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 062685 - Special Mtng IN AGENDA
2-.Z 7-2.12 K ITEM
MINUTES - SPECIAL STUDY SESSION APPROVFP AS ` PRESFP'TEP PY COUNCIL 8/12/P9
June 26 , 1985 , 7 :30 p.m.
City Administration Building, Rotunda Room
Mayor Nelson stated the purpose of the meeting/study session was in
regard to the proposed City developmental impact ordinance and fee
schedule. An agenda was made available to those in attendance. Mayor
Nelson clarified that , before the final aspects of the ordinance are
considered, there will be an opportunity forcommunityinput on this
item.
Staff Comment
Mike Shelton, City Manager, indicated the entire administrative staff
is present to respond to inquiries by the Council and public. Mr.
Shelton referred to a memo which was part of the agenda packet for
the last Council Meeting, particularly a section about the purpose
and intent of the development tax; he read that section aloud. (See
D.2 of his memo to City Council dated 6/2`4/85) . He stated that staff
wants, tonight, to walk Council and public through what they see as
the situation in Atascadero as it relates to continued growth pro-
jections and the impacts of growth in the community. Staff wants to
address what the financial analysis of the City is , both currently
and for the next year or so. The fee schedule is to be discussed,
with some comparison to what other cities are charging in the form
of a development fee. Finally, the legal implications will be dis-
cussed -- what kind of an ordinance would best serve the City to
implement some type of a fee schedule for new construction. Although
Item #3 on the agenda is Ordinance Consideration and Review, Mr. Shed-
ton stated the ordinance is not available for tonight' s discussion,
due to complexities in the legal aspect however, the staff memo , p. 3
can be used as a basis for discussion of what people might or might
not like to see in the ordinance. Mr. Shelton asked Henry Engen,
Planning Director, to comment on Item #2-A,, Growth Change Projections .
Mr. Engen, utilizing the overhead projector , demonstrated Atascadero ' s
growth since 1940 when the population was approximately 2 ,600 persons.':
In January 1984 , according to the Dept. of Finance for the State of
California, the population for the City limits of' Atascadero was
18 ,194; that figure is now increased to 18 ,835 as of Jan. 1, 1985,
according to the State' s figures. Mr. Engen also demonstrated growth
projections, which could see the City reach its full build-out popu-
lation of 34 ,150 persons by approximately the year 2000 .
Paul Sensibaugh, Public Works Director, gave an overview of the City's
needs as consolidated from all departments, highlighting those of Po-
lice , Fire and Recreation. ,
John Wallace, Interim Public Works Director, commented on the list of
needs, saying it is by no means an exhaustive -one but, rather, made up
of what are considered high-priority concerns. He mentioned traffic
lights, general transportation, bridges, storm drainage (not included'
on list but needs improvement attention) and road maintenance. The
cost estimates for these improvements, he added, are a rough sketch
and can be refined and modified.
1`P
COUNCIL MINUTES - SPECIAL STUDY SESSION' 6/26/85
PAGE TWO
Ray Cassidy, Interim Finance Director, commented on the City' s finan-
cial status, utilizing the overhead projector to show comparisons in
relation to other cities in the County; he used figures 'taken from the
State Controller' s Office from 183- 184 fiscal year. According to the
comparison of the 12 major sources of income which are common in most
cities, Atascadero is 6th of the 7 cities in the County, which ex-
plains in part its financial problems. Mr. Cassidy also showed the
estimated operating budget for FY85-86 and explained the figures.
Mike Shelton clarified, for the audience/public, that the figures
shown represent the total resources, fund balances and reserves of the
City.
Mr. Engen, again using the overhead projector, showed projections of
dwelling units and commercial/industrial land-use projections through
sometime after the year 2000 , and he explained what kind of money
might be generated off of new growth in the community. (See agenda
packet of 6/24/85 , Item D-1 for reference materials) Mr. Engen also
showed comparisons of other cities in the County which utilize devel-
opment fees, noting that Atascadero has the lowest development impact
fees.
Mike Shelton stated that staff presentation concluded; he noted the
recent Dial-A-Ride fare increase money has to go into ridership for
the program and to meet the increased expenses associated with it.
The amount of money to be generated by the increase in business li-
cense fees is estimated to be about $100 ,000 . Another source of
revenue might be gained as a result of the current City/County nego-
tiations regarding the property tax split that took place shortly
after the City' s incorporation and after the implementation of Prop-
osition 13. He emphasized that the City is proposing an unbalanced
budget again this year, as has traditionally occurred in the past;
this may affect the continuance of base-level services in the com-
munity for the following fiscal year. The City's resources are being
depleted. It is hoped that enough revenues can be generated to off-
set this drawing down of the City' s reserves. Based on the estimation
that the community is 50% developed (according to theGeneralPlan) ,
it is Mr. Shelton' s opinion that it would be important for the Council
to have the foresight to anticipate the City' s needs in order to in-
sure the necessary facilities, roads , lights and other conditions
which are necessary to insure that the growth in the community doesn't
take away from the existing amenities provided by local government
services.
Roger Lyon, Interim City Attorney, commented on his memo (see agenda
packet of 6/24/85) , dated 6/19/85 , which outlines the alternate meth-
ods for generating revenues from new development, and he offered to
take questions on the legal implications
Council Comment
Councilwoman Mackey stated she feels (although perhaps an insignificant
part of this discussion) that bus stop shelters on City property should
COUNCIL MINUTES - SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 6/26/85
PAGE THREE
be paid for by the City, and those located at businesses should be paid
by that business.
Councilman Molina stated he appreciates the -long-range ideas , but he
would like to see a more realistic 2-3 year plan with achievable goals
which can be reached within his term as a Councilmember.
Councilwoman Mackey referred to the projected needs of, for instance,
the Fire Dept. ; Mike Hicks, Fire Chief, responded that the Fire costs
projection is for replacing present equipment. Councilwoman Mackey
stated, although she is in 'favor of new development paying its way,
she doesn't think they should be expected to pay all the way.
Councilwoman Norris would like to see a more realistic fee schedule.'
She doesn't think $3 ,000-$3,500 is realistic at this time and that the
City is acting too fast on fee issues.
Public Comment
John Cole, resident on Sierra Vista Rd. , asked if the projected fig-
ures include salaries and benefits; Mr. Shelton responded that they
do. Mr. Cole feels that we'd better stop using the term "affordable`
housing if the Council decides to impose these development fees,
the affordable housing premise is out the window.
Robert Shannon stated he thinks it' s a mistake ;to single out just new
buildings; improvements in the community should be shared by everybody.
Craig Davis , a long-time resident, agreed that the improvement costs
which benefit the entire community should be shared by everybody. He
feels that to single out builders is, basically, discriminatory. `
Tom McNamara expressed concern as the previous two speakers. He also
feels that the term "extraction" should be used in place of "genera-
tion" of monies. He _feels :that City staff presented a somewhat slanted
picture , because the bulk of revenues of other communities shown came
from sewer and water. He doesn't believe there has been adequate study
of what builders here donate to sewer and water to present the facts
to Council the way they really are.
Mayor Nelson noted that, so far, although no one has come right out
and stated it , everyone who spoke is not in favor of any developmental
fee; Atascadero has no such fee, when the other cities average about
$4 ,500.
John Bunyea, four-year resident, agreed with Mr. McNamara; there are
many fees imposed on the builder that may not go directly into the City
funds , but are, ultimately, passed on to the buyer. Average income
people are not going to be able to live in Atascadero. He stated that
Paso Robles is encouraging industrial growth there, and any pollution
which may result is going to come this way. It seems to him that Atas-
cadero has to be allowed to "grow; we should invite industry, too, in
order to provide jobs for the young people who will, otherwise, be
forced to leave.
COUNCIL MINUTES - SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 6/26/85
PAGE FOUR
Nina Bunyea stated she cannot believe the logic, or lack thereof, that
she is hearing tonight. She asked (of the st.affinembers who made pre-
sentations) : What is Prop. 4; is there no other way to get money
besides milk anybody who wants to build?TNo other avenue was men-
tioned; In times past, there was talk about an all-City road assess-
ment district to care for and build roads. That concept and one-time
possibility has disappeared. She also mentioned the unseen costs to
the builder; when interest rates go up, as predictions indicate they
will, building is going to go down, and the revenues being discussed
will not exist -- "then what are you going to do?" . Nobody has said
anything about the proportion of new people as opposed to established
Atascadero residents who build'; Prop. 13 was passed to keep us from
raising taxes. All of these things you're doing are just legal ways
to get around Prop. 13. Go back to what the people wanted and cut ;the
cost of government.
Gale Day addressed the Amapoa-Tecorida situation. She asked if the
proposed developers' fee will be charged to those applications al-
ready before the City, particularly her own; she is 1 day or so from
obtaining a permit and is already required to pay $10 ,333 to address
the problem of the spillway. She understands that the impact zone fee
and the fair share and interest, which were mentioned a couple of weeks
ago, are no longer being considered, and they might be reimbursed down
to the development fee which is being proposed this evening; in her
interpretation, this means they will be charged a development fee.
Mrs. Day also asked, is there an ordinance that is going to establish
this pay-back that was recommended when the fee was recommended as
well? Who is setting up and is responsible for the pay-back schedule ,
and is it going to happen?
Mike Shelton responded to some of Mrs. Day's questions, reiterating
the City' s handling of the problems in the Amapoa-Tecorida area. The
City Council, he stated, has latitude on the fee decisions.
Emile LaSalle referred to one of the charts (which compared Atascadero ' s
per capita costs to those of other cities) ; if many of the additional
costs - ,such as water, sewer, the school development fee, the proposed
development fee, etc. - were shown, wouldn't that reflect the average
cost to other cities? He ,wonders how the public , as the third party
and "client" to the City, ,can be made aware of all this information in
only 1-3 months; he may have to apologize to the nearly 50% of the
people who opposed incorporation with whom he debated that such things
(decisions) would not happen.
Bill McNamara, McNamara Realty, advised people to consult a realtor,
that they can give a lot of information. He feels the issue of resi-
dential has been addressed, but that of commercial has been sidestepped.
In reference to SFR vs. MF, he thinks a close study would result in the
finding that Atascadero doesn't have that many multi-family residences.
It ' s the people that make the community, not the houses; with the people
comes the demand for commercial development. He feels the amounts be-
ing proposed are awfully, agressive and poorly thought out, mentioning
COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 6/26/85
PAGE FIVE
that his own family, along with some other investors, "just took a
large chunk of change out ofthis community" and are not going to pay
the fees to develop here
Linda Sylvan, ERA/Z&R Realty, expressed surprise that more realtors
are not present tonight to stand up and be represented. They are
trying very hard to get first-home owners in here; they fight inter-
est rates and points, often getting as far as selling a lot to a
potential builder, only to find out about some of the City' s "for-
bidden" fees.
.One gentlemen stated he wishes the City would consider a study on the
impact of the proposed fees on_growth, feeling they will discourage it,
thus lessening the needs for expansion of City services and improve-
ments.
Lon Allen, Atascadero News Editor, requested that the record show:
that Mr. Molina hintedthat, somehow, he doesn't know where the news-
paper got their figures (refers to Mr. Molina's response to the comments
of the previous speaker) ; Mr. Allen checked with the other news people, `
who all indicated they got them from the same source -- the agenda
packet provided them.
Bill Norris , resident, asked of Mr. Cassidy if he came up with any
figures with respect to per capita income of the County. Mr. 'Cassidy
responded that all the figures used were derived from those pertaining
strictly to cities. Mr. Shelton explained the difficulty in comparing
the City' s to the County' s per capita income. Mr. Norris also asked
if the capital improvements funds being sought would be enough to pro-
vide for additional employees to operate the additional equipment. Mr.
Shelton responded. Mr. Norris spoke against the proposed fees.
Phil Guidry, owner of five lots near park spillway, spoke against the
$10 ,400 cost, he understands, he would have to pay for the construction
of the spillway; in addition, he does not feel he should have to pay
for the construction of curbs and sidewalks in the park, which he also
is of the understanding would be required of him,` in order to sell one
of the lots he owns on Amapoa. Mr. Guidry took a considerable amount
of time in expressing his dissent with restrictions the City has im-
posed on his properties on Amapoa; he wonders if he will be allowed to
sell, lease or do something with his property within his life-span, as
he is now 65 years old. He claims that attempts to discuss the issue
with City officials have been ignored. Mayor Nelson invited Mr. Guidry
to put his charges in writing and make an appointment to discuss the
matter with Mr. Shelton.
Councilman Handshy reminded the audience that tonight 's meeting is a '
study session and intended to assist the Council with drafting the
development fee ordinance by obtaining suggestions from the public.
John Cole suggested the issue be handled by the initiative process , as
he considers it a major issue in this City and should be put before the
voters.
0 &
COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 6/26/85
PAGE SIX
Nina Bunyea suggested that, to improve public relations between the
City staff and citizens, it would help if the City frequently_'publi-
cized what other alternatives have been considered to generate monies'
for improvements.
Jerry Gast , 6-year resident, hopes the figure comes to no more than
$1 .00 per sq. ft. , hopefully $. 50 per sq. ft. ; any much more than
that would make it very difficult for him to budget his plans to
build a 1 ,500 sq. ft. home,
Tom McNamara asked the Council to consider (in their commercial fee)
the fact that, if commercial development is discouraged, it is likely
to cut off a source of income in that of the sales tax. Also, he
stated fees imposed on a segment (developers/builders) of the popu-
lation when they, essentially, don't have a voice (as they 're not the
majority) is, in a sense, taxation without representation.
Mr. Shelton indicated to Council that it' s going to take some time
and "homework" on the part of staff to bring this back in ordinance
form; in part because Mr. Lyon, Interim City Attorney, has indicated
that his workload is such that he is not able to devote much time to
serving the City.
MOTION: By Councilman Molina, seconded by Councilman Handshy, for
staff to bring this development fee back in ordinance form,
excluding the fee schedule, as soon as possible, to be fol-
lowed by public hearing(s) for further input. Council con-
curred with motion.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 9:25 P.M.
PREPARED BY:
CINDY WILKIYS, `Deputy City Clerk
•