Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 09/27/1995 CITY CLERKS OFFICE AGENDA SAN LU Z S OB=SPO COUNTY C=TY COUNC=LS SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING'''. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1995; 7:00 P.M. MORRO BAY COMMUNITY CENTER 1001 KENNEDY WAY, MORRO BAY, CA MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - Members of the audience wishing to address the Joint City Councils may do so at this time. When 'recognized by Mayor Yates, please come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Comments are limited to three minutes'; the Public Comment Period will be limited to thirty minutes. • WRITTEN STATEMENT A-1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (No action required) NEW BUSINESS B-1 DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY TAX SPLIT BETWEEN CITIES AND THE COUNTY B-2 DISCUSSION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY POLICIES REGARDING PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX IMPACTS ON CITY ANNEXATIONS B-3 DISCUSSION OF NEED FOR JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIES AND THE COUNTY FOR AREAS SURROUNDING CITIES (GREENBELT, NON-URBAN SPACE SEPARATIONS) B-4 JPA AND CITY/COUNTY MEMBERSHIP B-5 PRESENTATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND JPA B-6 ANNUAL MEETINGS ADJOURNMENT 1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE By the Mayors of San Luis Obispo County The Mayors of San Luis Obispo County's seven cities have called our Councils and staffs together as representatives of the citizens that live within the city limits of our respective cities. Furthermore, we are representing our citizens as taxpayers within the boundaries of San Luis Obispo I County. We live in increasingly strained social times, and many of our citizens live in economic distress. Our cities have structural imbalances like inadequate housing, traffic congestion, roads in need of repair and understaffed public safety departments. These imbalances are due,in large part, to impacts that have originations outside our city limits. Our cities are on the cutting edge in effectively managing our available resources,trying to maintain, at minimum,respectful levels of service to everyone to everyone who wants to live, do business or recreate in San Luis Obispo County. This evening, we feel the need to meet and discuss issues that we hold as common to all of our cities citizens. The questions are: Can cities afford to provide municipal services to annexing areas, when the County refuses to cooperate in sharing tax revenues from the areas wishing to annex to a given city? Is the method in which property taxes are divided between the Cities and County fair? The County receives roughly twice the amount of property taxes collected within our cities boundaries than do our respective cities. Our seven cities are well prepared to meet the goals of accountability and responsibility in the delivery of services to our citizens. However,the growth allowed in the unincorporated areas without full responsibility for services and traffic impacts cause our cities to express for our citizens a growing dissatisfaction in the trend. We recognize our County's LAFCO has become a vital organ of an overall County plan to perpetuate the trend of unincorporated areas' growth in population. The County, because of its funding woes, encourages districts to be formed. Initially,these areas form only road assessment districts, followed by fire, water and sewer districts. Unfortunately, the County does not pass thru all revenues associated with the growth of the District so they may one day incorporate. This encourages development that impacts on the incorporated cities, since the newly developed areas end up using city services not being provided by the Districts. Best examples are Shandon, Nipomo, Los Osos and Heritage ranch. So the Cities are here this evening to make a best effort to articulate the problems, educate one another, review some numbers and begin a solution process that balances revenues with services provided. We are aimed at fairness and ultimately what is in the best interests of the citizens living within . both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County. CITY OF MORRO BAY STAFF REPORT AGIENE")AN0. Z� l TO: HONORABLE MAYORS AND CITY COUNCILS Date Ion FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR OF MORRO BAY DATE: September 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Property Tax Distribution Between Cities and Other Entities RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for your information and as a starting point for further discussions on the equity of the current method of property tax distribution. Staff recommends that each City Council give consideration to adopting Joint Resolution 01-95_ which petitions the League of California Cities and our elected representatives in the Assembly and Senate to seek legislation to increase the proportion of property taxes allocated to cities based upon service benefits provided, rather than on an outdated mathematical formula. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND On a county wide basis, the estimated property tax revenue for Fiscal Year 1994-95 was $179,232,176. Of that amount,the City of Morro Bay was expected to receive $1,209,434. Morro Bay's share of the total county wide property tax revenue is 0.67% (2/3 of l percent.) The seven cities in San Luis Obispo County receive seven cents(7%)of every dollar of property tax collected in the county. (It should be noted that unlike more urbanized counties, approximately 42% of the population of San Luis Obispo County lives in unincorporated areas.) The County of San Luis Obispo receives approximately 24% of the total property tax revenues. Property tax revenues represent a significant funding source for the General Funds of all San Luis Obispo County cities and it is important to understand how these revenues are distributed. APPROVAL Department Head • City Administrator City Attorney Review if necessary) �osvro� Honorable Mayors and Ci Councils • Y City Property Tax Distributions Between Cities and Other Entities September 22, 1995 DISCUSSION To understand how property taxes are currently distributed,we need to go back to pre-Proposition 13 times. Until 1977-78, each taxing agency would develop its budget for the upcoming year and advise the counties of how much tax revenue it needed. The counties would accumulate the tax revenue needs of all taxing agencies to determine the total revenue amount needed. The total needed was then divided by the total of the assessed value of all properties to establish the tax rates for the upcoming year. The property tax bills that resulted from this process were approaching a statewide average of$13.00 to $15.00 per one-hundred dollars of assessed value. The continued increases in tax rates led to a taxpayer's revolt and the passage of Proposition 13 that resulted in a two-thirds reduction in property tax revenues. Proposition 13 required two changes in assessed valuation practices; first, Proposition 13 rolled back assessments to the 1975-76 levels;second,prior to Proposition 13,assessments were calculated at 25%of market value and Proposition 13 mandated use of full market value. This means that to compare pre- and post-Proposition 13 tax rates, one must convert pre-Proposition 13 rates by dividing them by four(4). Therefore,pre-Proposition 13 tax rates were the equivalent of 3.25%to 3.75%. In 1978-79,the counties implemented Proposition 13's limitations and began collecting 1% of the assessed value of property. The question then became how to distribute that pool of revenue in an equitable fashion. The State Legislatures provided guidelines in the form of AB-8,also known as, the "State Bailout." That legislation directed the counties to go back to the three-year period immediately prior to Proposition 13 and determine the average percentage of the total tax levy that went to each taxing agency. This percentage became known as the AB-8 Allocation Factor and that factor was used to distribute the pool of revenue collected by each county. The attached Exhibit A shows an example of the AB-8 Allocation Factor. In the example, the County of San Luis Obispo receives 31.660690%of the taxes raised and the City of Morro Bay receives 15.861430%. Exhibit A also introduces the concept of the Tax Rate Area(TRA.) The County of San Luis Obispo is a large geographical area,and it contains more than 400 tax rate areas. Tax rate areas are made up of a group of parcels of property that are served by the same group of taxing agencies. For example, Exhibit A is TRA number 006-002 and it is served by the County,the Air Pollution Control District, the County Library,the City of Morro Bay,the County Flood Control District,the Nacimiento Water Control District, the Cayucos-Morro Bay Cemetery District,the San Luis Coastal Unified School District,the San Luis Obispo County Community College District, and the County School Service District. Each of these ten agencies receives a proportionate share of the taxes collected for that TRA. The City of Morro Bay consists of five (5) Tax Rate Areas. Other cities may have more or less TRA's depending on the boundaries of taxing agencies providing services to the property . CARLESMMOUNCILWROPPAXI.CC Page 2 .,.—ba 20,1995 • Honorable Mayors and City Councils Property Tax Distributions Between Cities and Other Entities September 22, 1995 Under SB-2557,the counties are able to recover the costs incurred in administering the property tax system. The amount charged to each city is a proportionate share of the total cost incurred by the counties in the prior fiscal year. This amount is withheld from tax distributions to the each city. CONCLUSION Referring back to the pre-Proposition 13 property tax system, the cities developed a budget which then led to a tax rate sufficient to provide the services included in that budget. How the county operated and what services it provided were important issues but not a significant budgetary concern of the cities. In the post-Proposition 13 era, cities receive property taxes based on a system that ignores services and is based on percentage factors and formulae. Such a system may have been a equitable immediate solution, but after seventeen years could stand re-examination. There appear to be issues of equity in the current property tax distribution system. Do citizens of the seven cities of this county receive benefit in proportion to the amount of taxes that flow to the county as opposed to the city? Are residents of the incorporated areas of the county paying double for property tax • administration fees and booking fees assessed against their cities? The amount of property tax allocated to the county is nearly double that allocated to the City of Morro Bay in the example provided(Exhibit A.)Certainly the County of San Luis Obispo provides valuable services to Morro Bay citizens in areas such as Social Welfare,Public Health,Administration of Justice, etc. Does the allocation system need to be re-examined in the context of how local taxpayers prioritize the services provided by all layers of government? The pre-Proposition 13 property tax system was far more capable of responding to service mix and service level changes at the local level. The current property tax distribution system is much less responsive and may be out of touch with its intended purpose. • Page 5 JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SEEKING THE SUPPORT OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY AND SENATE, THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, AND ALL OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES TO CREATE A MORE EQUITABLE SYSTEM FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES WHEREAS, the cities in the County of San Luis Obispo rely upon property taxes as a major source of revenue to the General Fund, and the General Fund pays the costs of valuable and basic services to their citizens; and WHEREAS, the demands for basic services far outstrip the revenues derived from the current level of funding by existing property tax distribution formula; and • WHEREAS, the City Councils believe that inequities exist in the current property tax allocation system relating to the value of services provided by other taxing entities; and WHEREAS, within San Luis Obispo County some 58% of the population lives within incorporated areas, yet only 7% of the property tax revenues are allocated to cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County request the support of our elected officials in the California Assembly and Senate, the League of California Cities and all California cities in seeking legislation to provide a more equitable system for allocating property taxes, and to increase the proportion of property taxes allocated to cities based upon the service benefits provided to their citizens. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County at a special joint meeting thereof held on the 27th day of September, 1995. • Joint Resolution No. 01-95 Page Two ATTEST: MAYOR A.K. "PETE" DOUGALL City of Arroyo Grande ATTEST: MAYOR GEORGE HIGHLAND City of Atascadero ATTEST: MAYOR GENE GATES City of Grover Beach ATTEST: • MAYOR WILLIAM YATES City of Morro Bay ATTEST: MAYOR WALT MACKLIN City of Paso Robles ATTEST: MAYOR PAUL BAILEY City of Pismo Beach ATTEST: MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE City of San Luis Obispo 09/25/95 13:43 'x`805 772 7320 CTY OF MORRO BAY 10002/007 Exhibit A DATE 08/17195 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY TAX SYSTEM TCMG63-ROZI PACE 100 TIME 21.31.43 TAX REVENUE ALLOCATION BY TRA ROLL YEAR 1995/96 TRA 006-002 AR-8 ANNUAL ALLOCATION TAX BASE TOTAL FUND TITLE FACTOR (%) INCREMENT REVENUE REVENLE 0001 GENERAL FUND 31.660630 73.457 29138984E Z#212+3CS 0007 ALR POLLU CONTROL 0.106430 247 79191 79438 0026 COUNTY LIBRARY 2.o67840 49798 139*695 141*493 OZ32 MORRO BAY 15.861430 36.800 1.0719527 191089327 0643 SLO CO FLOOD C13NTRCL 0.40ZZ80 933 279176 289109 0+647 NACIMIENTO WTR CONTR 0.325640 756 229002 22*758 0845 CAYOCOS-HO CEMETR L.205160 2 t 796 131,9414 849,210 1234 S L COASTAL UNIF 37.69ZI10 871450 295469308 29633li58 1303 SLO C 0 COM COLLEG 6. 705040 1St 556 4529 962 468 .518 1308 CO SCHOOL SERVICE 3. 973390 9,214 268.424 2779643 TRA TOTALS 1000000000 Z3Z9012 697559547 64987-14.59 s UR/25/95 13:43 TT805 772 7329 CTY OF MORRO BAY 10003/007 Allocation of Your Property Taxes FbW YaW rbMM Are C&ifta (5&0%1 SdHMb (6A961SpedSI Dbtlrt b 4 924.0%) T (7.0%)CMOs Cities Receive 7 cents of each$1 MOM Bay P406ft S1.W,104 The g=zal perception seem to be that most, if not all Property taxes,that a citizen pays to the property tax collector come bark to the city for the benefit of the citizens of that city. The above pie chart shows how the property talc dollar is divided up between schools,county government, special districts and cities.Roughly seven cents of every dollar paid by Mono Bay property owners comes to the City of Morro Say's General Fund. The Fiscal Yes; 1995-96 estimated property tax revenue is S 1,207,104 which equates to approximately 23% of General Fund revenues. �QQ .y0.to" :- h� ��!k�{ Kik.. ... y F �. 1.i 1� �fc, ��i Vii. ,.. w!I:1V�.. ^N'' ',e_�r x ..,�. ,fi ... .,. .d. 48!25185 13:43 27805 772 7329 GTY OF MORRO BAY 10004/UU7 L Morro Bay Property Tax Receipts Va.0IhW SW OMOV AgWin to Regi cc ommay The County of San Luis Obispo assesses and collects all property taxes for all tax supported agencies within the county.in FY 95 the county will be billing paropertyowners within the etre coin for a total of$179,232,176. Of that amount,a total of$1,.209,434 will be forwarded to the City of Morro Bay. This amount represents seven-tenths of one percent(0_71%). As a whole all cities within the county receive about seven percent(7%)of'total cp4ections. Schools receive 63%, spe!Fivi districts receive 6%,and the county receives the remaining 24%. i 09/25/85 13:43 12805 772 7329 CTY OF MORRO BAY x(005/007 • City of Mara Bay Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget Major Revenue Sources of the General Fund Major Revenue Sources Of The General Find (18.9%)t erMA Bales Tax (23.3%)Pnap"Taxes (IL3%)Transint 0=Tax i (W ) Sixty percent of all revenue accruing to the General.Fund comes from three sources. The largest revenue source is Property tax, but the City's share of each Property tax dollar is approximately seven cents.The rest of the dollar is divided as follows: 63 cents goes to Schools,24 cents goes to County govermuent and 6 terns goes to other special districts. General sales &use tax is a major revenue source to the General Fund.Of the 7.25%rate for the area,approximately 95/100 of a cent comes back to the City. Transient occupancy tax is also a major revenue source to the General Fuad and is computed at the rate of 9%of basic xoom rental cost.Currently, this is the only major revenue source that the City Council can control. • 09/25/95 13:44 12805 772 7329 CTY OF MORRO BAY 10006/007 City of Morro Bay Fiscal Year 1995-96 General Fund Revenue Sources Sources of General Fund Revenue rn 9%)Tax Itsvo ma [44%1 i sY ftm Una Prop �Q.a9G)FNS 3 Forlaa mov a4%)Canom Sande t7 )1humul n (42%)Lksnsss 3 Psnlls This graph depicts haw the General Fund receives the revenue that makes up the carrez t budget. Page 42 Ui�lZ5185 18:44 =805 772 7329 CTY OF NORRO SAY �jUU7fUU7 Property Tax receipts are projected to iz=et#se by 3.73%. Comparison of Property Tax Rev. F umdYem 1991—1996 7540 7004 b C � 4 4 Q 1+ see d FY 91 FY 98 6 1 FY 92 FY 94 FY $ Racal Year • t�aodrsas��*mex�.ewie.er 4►,.�i iLd'. a ► Date -Action • Memorandum September 14, 1995 To: Mayors & City Councils of SLO County From: City Manager Subcommittee on Tax Exchange Subject: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE POLICIES ANDANNEXATION Recommendation: Direct city managers to continue negotiations with County staff to establish a consistent, predictable, and equitable countywide property tax exchange policy at the earliest possible time. Discussion: Early this year, the Mayors of San Luis Obispo County referred to their respective city managers the issue of negotiating an equitable property tax exchange policy with the County. The city managers appointed the following three persons to represent the cities in these negotiations: ■ Richard Ramirez, City Manager, Paso Robles ■ Bob Hunt, City Manager, Arroyo Grande ■ Ken Hampian, Assistant CAO, San Luis Obispo The attached position paper fully explains the significance of this policy issue to cities, and the early efforts made by the managers to begin a dialogue with the County. In early September, the County issued its own paper on this subject, which is also attached. In addition, a meeting with the city manager committee has finally been scheduled by the County for Friday, September 22nd. The subcommittee will report on this first meeting under Item 2 of the September 27th meeting of all city councils. • AN ANNEXATION KILLER: THE EVOLVING STATE OF COUNTY-CITY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS Recommended Action That San Luis Obispo County cities enter into negotiations with the County of San Luis Obispo to establish a consistent, predictable, and equitable countywide property tax exchange policy at the earliest possible time. Background: Straws in the Wind As a prerequisite to any annexation, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 requires the affected jurisdictions to negotiate an exchange of property tax revenue. Such negotiations are triggered by a Local Agency Formation Commission approving a "Notice to Commence Negotiations for the Exchange of Property Tax Revenue and Annual Tax Increment". A 30 day period is allowed to complete such negotiations. For many years, San Luis Obispo County policy was to use a "standard property tax exchange formula" in determining the appropriate share of taxes for the County and the annexing city. Under this formula, the County retains all of its existing property tax base while the annexing city gets a share of the new increment equivalent to its average percent "take" of property tax in already annexed areas. In the City of San Luis Obispo, for example, the City's average property tax share is approximately 14%. On the whole, this policy has worked well, and has been perceived as predictable and equitable. However, a slow evolution -- if not a total abandonment of the policy -- appears to be underway. In recent years, as the County's fiscal environment has changed, County government has been asking for "something more" than the standard property tax exchange agreement. For example, in the late 1980s the City of Paso Robles agreed to a higher than usual allocation of tax increment to the County in exchange for an agreement that would facilitate significant commercial development in an expansion area. In 1992 the City of San Luis Obispo entered into a similar agreement to facilitate our "Broad Street annexation". The Broad Street annexation was fairly unique, in that much of the area was already developed, and the County was receiving sales tax revenue from an existing supermarket. Initially, the County asked that all of the existing sales tax base be "passed through" to them. The City, however, pointed out that the annexation would relieve the County of certain service provision . requirements -- and instead place new demands on the City -- and consequently the negotiated agreement should be based on a concept of "fiscal neutrality" and not "revenue neutrality". Ultimately, both parties agreed to a pass through of 50% of the existing sales tax, which only amounted to $21,000 annually. More importantly, the pass through was accommodated by adjusting the property tax allocation, and not through a direct sharing of sales tax revenues. In 1994, evidence of a further departure from past practice--perhaps, even a total abandonment a of past practice -- became apparent as a part of what is known in San Luis Obispo as the "TK Annexation". Few annexations could be more routine: The TK property is located on the corner of Tank Farm Road and South Higuera Street, and is only 22 acres in size. With the exception of a recently developed mini storage warehouse on 3.5 acres, the;area is vacant. Both the County and City general plans support the eventual annexation of the land into the City. The County was providing virtually no services to the area while in county jurisdiction, nor were they expected to be impacted in any way by the future development of the property in the City. At the time of annexation, and still today, there are no development permits approved for the property. When the "30-day negotiation clock" began ticking, City staff was confident that the County would follow past practice for such a routine annexation and therefore use the standard property tax exchange formula. We were wrong. Instead, the County explained that like counties throughout the state, they had suffered significant revenue reductions in recent years, and therefore needed to be rigorous in their protection of current revenues, and in their search for new revenues. As such, the County stated that they wished to negotiate for potential sales tax from future anticipated development in the TK annexation area. The City refused to negotiate such a precedent setting agreement. Instead, we told the County that its interest in "potential sales tax" represented an entirely new countywide policy relative to property tax exchange agreements. We argued that the County should pursue this interest in a much broader forum, which included representative of all other cities. Conversely, we stated that attempting to extract such a concession "by holding the TK annexation hostage at the • eleventh hour" would clearly be viewed as a strong arm tactic not only by our city, but by all other cities, and as such would poison the atmosphere for a broader and more constructive dialogue on local government finance and annexation exchange policies. Starting the dialogue --- then stopping This issue was raised by SLO City officials during a January 1995 meeting of SLO County Mayors. The Mayors agreed to refer the issue to the city managers for discussion with the County CAO. The city managers met with the County CAO in February 1995. During this meeting, the CAO confirmed that the County wished to abandon the previous "standard property tax exchange formula", in light of the County's financial circumstances. He indicated that this was a trend statewide, and one that was being encouraged by the California State Association of Counties. However, Mr. Hendricks agreed to facilitate a more formal countywide dialogue on the matter. There has been no progress since that time. I Why should cities proactively pursue this dialogue now? The short answer is: The County is in the position of strength on this issue. First, there is nothing in State law which establishes a formula that a County must follow in negotiating a tax exchange. In essence, what the law requires is that both jurisdictions reach a negotiated agreement. Of course, if a County is perceived as being "unreasonable", there is . always legal recourse -- an expensive and uncertain proposition, at best. II Second, time is on the County's side... and all the pressure is on the City. By the time an • annexation reaches the L.aFCO stage, it has already been through the rigors of local government n reached with consensus may finally have been , review and communitydebate. Community Y . �� Alas the controversy replaced by excitement and high expectations for what is to come". , annexation proceeds to LaFCO.... whereupon the City has 30 days to reach agreement with the dies! Hardly Count or the annexation d y a position of strength. Y, And finally, cities have the most to lose financially... and the stakes can be very high. For the Cit the financial implications of the TK Annexation are relatively insignificant. This is not City, P true of several much larger annexation areas; areas where our major commercial, industrial, and residential expansions are to take place. Other cities undoubtedly have similar plans, or will moment of greatest weakness... when the 30-day clot some day. We should not wait until our Y starts ticking... to negotiate tax exchange in these areas. Chances are, we will give up more than necessary for all of the above stated reasons. Therefore, we believe that we should insist upon entering into a dialogue with the County at the earliest possible time to negotiate a new countywide property tax exchange agreement. In doing so, we must recognize that we may have to agree to some compromises and changes to past practice. However, if these compromises are reasonable, then we should gain important benefits from the standpoint of consistency and predictability... and by avoiding 11th hour power plays that are very difficult to defend against. In formulating our position, we may wish to consider the concept of "fiscal neutrality" instead • of the County's preference for "revenue neutrality", or even revenue enhancement. Fiscal neutrality essentially means that the County should not "lose" in an annexation---but neither should they gain. The standard tax exchange formula assures that the County will retain its existing property tax base. With regard to sales tax, if for example the County is deriving $75,000 in sales tax from an area, but is relieved of $50,000 is service provision as a result of annexation, then the added pass through of property tax to them would be$25,000. This would be the calculation under "fiscal neutrality". Under "revenue neutrality", the County would get the entire $75,000. Obviously, there are a number of other alternatives which we should discuss. What is most important, however, is that cities develop a strategy and proceed to discussions with the County in the very near future. KH:kk H:ADMIIN\KCMCOUNCY2.TAX County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370•SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011 "� //y/5,� "! OFFICE OF THE ^+ RQ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO: ALL CITY MANAGERSS 4�q FROM: ROBERT E. HENDRIACOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 SUBJECT: POSITION PAPER 'ON PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGES FOR ANNEXATIONS At the most recent City/County Managers meeting,a subcommittee of cities' representatives was appointed to meet with me to discuss the issue of property tax exchange for annexations. As a precursor to that meeting, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with our overall thoughts . in the form of a position paper, which is attached for your review. The paper discusses the background of the issue and explains the current situation. The County of San Luis Obispo is extremely interested in reaching an agreement with all cities on the approach to property tax exchange negotiations set forth in the paper. I will be pleased to discuss the approach further with your City Managers' subcommittee on this issue, and in this regard will be contacting the subcommittee members to schedule this meeting. It is my ope at s wi set t e stage for the September 27, 1995 meeting of all cities on property tax negotiations. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. POSITION PAPER ON PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGES FOR ANNEXATIONS Background County policy encourages urban growth within established urban centers. Land use policy establishes urban reserve lines that set boundaries between urban/suburban land uses and rural land uses. The urban reserve lines define urban growth areas around urban centers. In addition to the County planning process, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), is responsible for ensuring the orderly'and rational growth-of governmental entities that provide urban type services. LAFCO establishes spheres of influence and decides if annexations to cities and special districts are reasonable and logical. Generally, urban growth is directed away from agricultural lands into areas that are set ;aside in city and- county-general plans for urban development. Although the fiscal ability of the annexing agency is considered by LAFCO, these decisions are generally outside of the purview of the Commission. As a prerequisite to any annexation, Revenue and Taxation Section 99 requires the_affected jurisdictions to negotiate an exchange of property tax revenue. Such negotiations are initiated by a "Notice to Commence Negotiations" placed on the agendas'of the affected agencies. A 30- day negotiation period is allowed to complete negotiations: The period may be extended by 15- days only if LAFCO changes the boundaries of the annexation. If agreement is not reached within the negotiation period, the annexation in essence is terminated and does not proceed to LAFCO. With respect to the above noted process, for many years the County of San Luis Obispo used a "standard agreement" whereby the County retained all of the base property tax revenue, while the annexing agency is transferred a share of the County's increment equivalent to the average increment the annexing agency receives from all of the Tax Rate Areas within its existing boundaries. The-standard agreement has not been followed in some instances where the territory to be annexed generated sales tax revenues. ' Since sales tax is allocated to counties and cities on a "situs" or point of sale basis, when unincorporated territory is annexed to a city the county loses sales tax and the city gains the same amount of revenue. In these cases the county and the annexing city have negotiated a lesser amount of property tax to offset the potential loss of sales tax revenue. Current Situation In recent years the fiscal picture of local government entities has changed. This change is due in large measure to the economy and the resultant inability of the State of California to balance its budget. Since the State Constitution requires schools district to be funded at historic levels, the State has aggressively sought to generate additional revenues. As a result, local property tax revenues have been diverted to schools thereby lowering the amount of State funds required to maintain funding levels. However, this loss of local property tax revenue has not fallen equally on cities and counties. Counties have borne the brunt of the States property tax "grab" having • lost approximately 30% of property tax revenues in recent years. Cities have lost a much lesser amount, about 10%. This has unfortunately, but of necessity, caused the County of San Luis Obispo to reevaluate its historical position in many areas, including property tax negotiations for jurisdictional changes. No longer can the County agree to transfers based on a generic formula agreed to under different ground rules. On the contrary, each jurisdictional change must now be evaluated based on its actual fiscal effect, both today and in the future. However, we expect to embody this process in a new standard concept. • Clearly the County is not in a position where it wishes to "profit" from annexations and we will continue to work closely with cities to provide continuity between city and county land use planning. On the other hand, the County cannot afford to subsidize annexing agencies by agreeing to an unreasonable transfer of property tax revenue. There should therefore be a reasonable balance between service cost savings and revenue transfers. If the County is relived of $50,000 in service responsibility.then an equivalent amount of property tax revenue could be transferred to the annexing agency. Revenuesshould however include all sources of revenue, including sales tax, TOT, and other revenues. A determination must also be made of future growth in the annexing area and the ability of the total revenue generation to the County being able to keep pace with the ultimate build out of the area in terms of our continuing and growing service responsibility. This may be viewed in terms of commercial/industrial development with. increases in the overall county employment base, or residential development with new inhabitants. In cases where no service responsibilities are being assumed by the annexing agency, a zero exchange of property tax revenue may be warranted. For example, a limited service district (water and sewer for instance) may annex vacant land. The services are not currently being provided by the County and the district can recover its.cost from:user,fees.- The County will incur additional service responsibilities in the future from new inhabitants,e.g.sheriff,fire,roads, health and welfare, courts,parks, etc., and these services need to be financed by revenues general from the given area to maximum extent.possible. • Overall, a new policy needs to be established by the County of San Luis Obispo that takes into account the following factors: 1. Total revenues generated from the annexing territory, both present and future. 2. Potential growth in the area that will increasefuture county service responsibilities and related costs. The growth projects would be based on maximum buildout in the annexing area based on prezoning by a city or county land use designations for special districts serving unincorporated county areas. 3. Savings to the County from transferring service responsibilities to the annexing agency. The concept of "revenue neutrality," which is currently in place for incorporations of new cities should be used as a basis for negotiations. Cost savings to the county should be balanced against revenue transfers. All current and future sources of revenue should be considered and balanced against service responsibility transfers to the annexing agency, and future service responsibilities for the county. • QEF' _17( i iF i=iPRIDYO GFRJDE P.Oc C�ARROYO C' t t-2 410 NO. 9 Dat® tion i »cottroa•rt 9Z D JULY t0, ltttt t MENORAMUM c4�rFOR�\P TO: MAYORS AND CITY COUNCILS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FROM: MAYOR ME DOUGALL, CITY OF ARROYO SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVIKWPME 1T DATE: SBPTEMER 27, 1995 RBCOMMSPII}ATION: It is recommended the Mayors and City Councils form a subcommittee of three City Managers to initiate discussions . with County staff regarding the establishment of a consistent, equitable Countywide policy on urban development. DISCUSSION: The Cities of San Luis Obispo County share a concern regarding orderly development within the County. The Guidelines for Orderly Development adopted by Ventura County are an affirmation that urban-type development should take place within City boundaries _ The Guidelines strengthen a City' s ability to control or review problems within its sphere of influence_ More importantly, the Guidelinesestablish a partnership relationship among the Cities and County. The attached documents more fully explain the Guidelines - iv • JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 02-95 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILS OF THE CITIES OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY INDICATING THEIR INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING WITH THE COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the establishment of Guidelines for Orderly Development would create an affirmation that urban-type development should take place within city boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Guidelines strengthen a city's ability to control or review problems with its sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Guidelines establish a partnership relationship among the cities and County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councils of the Cities of San Luis Obispo County, that a subcommittee of three City Managers be formed to initiate discussion with County staff regarding the establishment of Guidelines for Orderly Development for San Luis Obispo County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Councils of the Cities of San • Luis Obispo County at a special joint meeting thereof held on the 27th day of September, 1995. ATTEST: MAYOR A.K. "PETE" DOUGALL City of Arroyo Grande ATTEST: MAYOR GEORGE HIGHLAND City of Atascadero ATTEST: MAYOR GENE GATES City of Grover Beach • Joint Resolution No. 02-95 Page Two ATTEST: MAYOR WILLIAM YATES City of Morro Bay ATTEST: MAYOR WALT MACKLIN City of Paso Robles ATTEST: MAYOR PAUL BAILEY City of Pismo Beach ATTEST: MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE City of San Luis Obispo • 171* OF HPPCfrO GRHNDE 477 P.05 At' Kit r /7, City of Arroyo Grande plinninP_ DPot. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY J U L 1 3 1595 MEMORANDUM January 28, 1985 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: VENTURA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION Recommend adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW At the meeting of January 16, 1985, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:0, with 2 absent, recommended that the City Council adopt the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. In 1969 the Board of Supervisors and LAFCO first adopted guidelines for growth. After considerable discussion and meetings with cities and other aeencies , a refined set of guidelines was developed and adopted by the cities , includinc Simi Valley, then by the Board of Supervisors and finally by LAFCO in early 1976. The major thrust of the existing Guidelines is an affirmation that urban-type development should take place within incorporated municipalities that can Provide a full range of necessary services. Implementation of the guidelines ensures the use of consistent development standards , orderly and cost-effective extension of services, prevention of future developed county islands within growing cities , and prevention of the possible burden of such islands developed at lesser standards requiring upgrading by the City i-" annexation becomes necessary. The revised Guidelines co one step further by sharpie delineating responsibility for arowth control decisions and stating policies in stronger statements. Some existing policy statements that suggest direction have been changed to clear mandates by substitutina_ the word "shall" for "should," This is very oroaressive at the County level and accedes to the desires stated in • 1976 by some of the outside agencies that reviewed the existina Guidelines . Adoption of the revised Guidelines would have the positive effect of strengthening the City's ability to control or review projects within its Sphere of influence and Area of Interest respectively. This promotes greater local autonomy between the City and the County. 1 T','' 'OF HRFI I'i'C L PkZIE -'�1 --:7—_ OJ C6 f.06 2 The revised Guidelines are as consistent with the General Pian policies and goals as the existing Guidelines. The County' s desire for fiscal conservation which spurred the creation of the Guidelines goes hand in hand with the City's desire for cost efficient development, local control and natural resource conservation. As of this writing, six of the ten cities in Ventura County have approved the revised Guidelines: Camarillo, Ojai , Ventura, Moorpark, Santa Paula, and Port Hueneme. The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development are general policy statements made by the legislative body and as such are not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. The Guidelines are therefore exempt from environmental review (Section 15378(b) of the California Administrative Code) . ALTIERNATIVES 1. Recommend adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development to the City Council . This alternative strengthens the partnership arrangement that now exists between the City and County of Ventura with a stronger stance on jurisdictional responsibilities and a clearer statement on the policies of growth and 'annexation. 2. Recommend maintenance of the existing Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development to the City Council . This alternative suggests to the County of Ventura that the policy statements recommended in the revised Guidelines are too strong and infringe on the City' s autonomy. This alternative may have little or no effect overall if most of the other cities and the County should approve the revised Guidelines. 3. Recommend rescinding the existing Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. This alternative would be contrary to current City Council policies and serve to promote disharmony between the City and Ventura County. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development based on the findings that follow. FINDINGS 1. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development are consistent with the existing adopted Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. 2. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development provide a framework for cooperative interaovernmental relations. -2- Pi-','O GRHNL E =;=t_ _ :_t rb F.07 3 S. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development p allow for urbanization in a manner that will accommodate the development goals of the City of Simi Valley while conserving the resources of this community and the Countv of Ventura. 4. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development promote efficient and effective delivery of community services. S. The revised Ventura Countv Guidelines for Orderly Development identify, in a manner understandable to the general public, the planning and service responsibilities of providing urban services within Simi Valley and the adjacent unincorporated County areas. 6. The revised Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development have been determined not to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and are therefore exempt from environmental review. amen L. Arnold, Director Department of Community Development INDEX Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 City Council Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4 Planning Commission Scarff Report . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 5 txistina Guidelines for Orderly Development _ . . . 1 !'November 8, 1984 Ventura County letter .. .. . . . . . 10 Revised Guidelines for Orderly Development . . _ . . 11 Planning Commission Resolution . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Wuncg CII y Res mm Ord. No Refer Bt-a'=s -3- 17 ' OF HPRU'YO _PriNDE -I'D _ .J,66 P.08 RESOURCE MANAGtn.,�NT AGENCY 10 count ������� Planning Division Dennis Davis,AICP Mensg.,av� November 8, 1984 James L. Arnold, Planning Director City of Simi Valley 3855 D Alamo St. Simi Valley, CA 93065 Subject: Guidelines for Orderly Development Dear Jim: Attached is the final version of the updated Guidelines for Orderly Development as recommended by the City County Planning Association on October 26, 1984. we request that you have your City Council adopt these Guidelines, by resolution, no later than November 30, 1984, and transmit a copy of the resolution to us. Once all cities within Ventura County have acted on these Guidelines, we will forward the Guidelines to the Board of Supervisors and LAFCO for their adoption. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 654-2481. Sincerely, RESOLMCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Deriftfs T. Davis, AICP Manager, Planning Division DTD:BS:j/K27 800 South Victoria Avenue..,;entura,Ca 93009 i'_ OF APP.OYO i ANDS _-�� -��'� _uob P. 10 12 GENERAL POLICIES: 1. Urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services and are responsible for urban land use planning. 2. The Cities and the County should strive Eo produce general plans, ordinances and policies which will fulfill these guidelines. POLICIES WITHIN SPHERES OF INFLUENCE.- The NFLUENCE:The following policies- shall apply within City Spheres of Influence (Spherts of Influence are created by LAFCO, as required by State law, to identify the probable, ultimate boundaries of cities and special districts, realizing that spheres may be amended from time to time as conditions warrant): 3. Applicants for land use permits or entitlements for urban uses shall be encouraged to apply to the City to achieve their development goals and discouraged from applying to the County. 4- The City is primarily responsible for local land use planning and for providing municipal services. S. Prior .to being developed for urban purposes or to receiving municipal services, land should be annexed to the City. w.xv, Annexation to the City is preferable to the formation of new or expansion of existing County service areas. 7. Land uses which are allowed by the County without annexation should be equal to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the City. 8. Development standards and capital improvement requirements imposed by the County for new or expanding developments, should not be less than chose that would be imposed by the City. POLICIES WITHIN AREAS of INTEREST: The following policies apply within Areas of Interest where a City cxisEs, but outside the City's Sp4ere of Iafluence (Areas of Interest are created by LAFCO to identify logical areas of common interest within which there will be no more than one City): 9. Applications for land use permits or entitlements shall be referred to the City for review and comment. 10. The County is primarily responsible for local land use planning, consistent with Elie general land use goals and objectives of the City. '11. Urban development should be allowed only within existing communities as designated on Elie County Ceneral Plan_ I2. Unincorporated urbanized areas should financially support County- administered urban services which are comparable to those urban services provided by Cities. BS1pH272 ][272/2 IT`,' OF HRPO'r'0 -R.;HDE _ :=L$e P.09 11 VENTURA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PREFACE: In a cooperative effort to guide future growth and development, the Cities, County and Local Agency formation Commission have participated in the creation of these "Guidelines for Orderly Development." The following guidelines are a continuation of the guidelines which were originally adopted in 1969, and maintain the theme that urban development should be located within incorporated cities whenever or wherever practical. The intent of these guidelines is to clarity the relationship between the cities and the County with respect to urban planning, serve to facilitate a better understanding regarding development standards and fees, and identify the appropriate governmental agency responsible for making determinations on land use requests. These guidelines are a unique effort to encourage urban development to occur within cities, and to enhance the regional responsiblity of County government. These guidelines facilitate the orderly planning and development of Ventura County by: o Providing a framework for cooperative intergovernmental relations. o Allowing for urbanization in a manner that will accommodate the development goals of the individual communities while conserving the resources of Ventura County. o Promoting efficient and effective delivery of community services for existing and future residents. o Identifying in a manner understandable to the general public, the planning and service responsibilities of local governments providing urban services Within Ventura County. November, ;984 H272/1 117,* OF PPO',0 GRv4ADt =1:. -1J�;b P. 1 14 1. URBAN DEVELOP�ENT should occur within incorporated cities which exist to provide a Eull range of municipal services . 2. To be timely, URBAN development in chose spheres of interest within which a city exists should be adjacent or Legally annexable to the city, and should be developed only within the city. 3. tllchin a city's sphere of interest, land uses which would be allowed by the County should be equal to or more restrictive than those Land uses allowed by the city. 4. Within a city's sphere of interest, development standards and costs imposed by the Councy should be not less than those required by the city. 5. A significant measure of the appropriateness of a chane from a rural to an URBAN land use is the existence of urban services. 6. Within spheres of interest where a city exists, and within "urban" areas as exhibited on the Open Space Element of the County General Plan, applicants should be discouraged from making application to the County for MEAN land uses and be directed co the appropriate city to achieve their development objectives. 7. Properties within the unincorporated area which receive municipal services from a city should be included within the Limits of that city. ; b. Annexation of unincorporated URBAN properties within a city's sphere of interest should be encouraged as a method of ensuring chat existing UREeaV land uses are located within municipal boundaries, provided that proposals co annex such properties should include supportive docu- ments and active encouragement from the city. 9. Existing unincorporated properties on the periph- ery of cities, which lack and would 'benefit from community severs, should be encouraged and assisted in gaining that service from such cities. -2- i =c ------- -_ iF RRiirO IaRHPaUE =i= �� b P. 11 13 VENTURA COUNTY'S GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPHENT The following "Guidelines for Orderly Development" have been adopted by LA FCO, the Board of Supervisors and the majority of cities within Ventura County. These refine guidelines adopted in 1969, maintaining the consistent theme chat urban development should be located within incorporated cities whenever and whereverpractical. The adoption of these in May 1976 culminated an effort during - the previous year by the County, LA FCO, local agencies and pri- vate citizen groups to improve the clarity of relationships between cities with respect to urban development projects within their respective spheres of interest. The Ventura LAFCO has directed that its staff use the adopted Guidelines in evaluating proposals. Presently, a "task force" of CityCounty, special district and LAFCO representatives are developing methods and mechanisms for implementing the Guidelines . GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT In a cooperative effort to guide the future growth and development of Ventura County, the cities, County and Local Agency Formation Commission have participated in the creation of the Guidelines for Orderly Development_ The adoption of these guidelines will allow and encourage cities Co exercise municipal responsibility within estab- lished spheres of interest. These guidelines are neces- sary to clarify the roles Char- local agencies will have in the coming years. These guidelines, which apply only to chose spheres of interest in which a city exists, serve to facilitate a better understanding concerning development standards and fees, and further identify the appropriate goverrz- mental entity responsible for malting determinations on urban land use requests within its sphere. Finally, these guidelines are a unique effort Co encourage urbanization projects to, occur within cities and to evolve a regional approach to County government. i PPr4DE;T'' Ur HRPO 'U P. 1499 A m C T > a 7D = o w T N 0 Z m O a m * C1T� r q cam' n s v Yo o, m � n r m o m z o V ,��+ i '' OF HNFU`r'U GPANDE __` ��'r3 P. 1 J 1J 10. Unincorporated URBAN areas should financially support local• Councy-administered urban ser- vices which are comparable to [hose urban services provided by cities. 11. Annexation to existing cities is preferable to the formation of new, or the expansion of exisc- ing, Councy service areas. May 26, 1976 -3- • SEP--1-iIT',' iJF HPP.CI '0 ORR4DE __; c 4771 86 P. 16 V L A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE 1995-1996 VENTURA COUNTY GRAND JURY THE ROLE OF LAFCO IN PRESERVING COMMUNITY LIVABILITY AND IDENTITY: THE "SPHERES OF INFLUENCE" PROGRAM AND "GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT" presented by Stanley A. Eisner, MSCRP; AICP; AEP Executive officer, Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission CGROUND 1 D HI=RICAL PERSPECTIVE Rapid population growth in California, especially in the 1950's and 1960 's , created a situation that can only be described as "annexation Wars" between the cities of the state. These land grabs, which were unplanned, uncoordinated, and without any logic, created situations Where inadequate services and facilities Were available for new city residents , open space and agricultural land resources were dissipated without regard for any future beyond an immediately profitable tomorrow, and the physical separation • between urban places disappeared. The boundary maps of many cities looked like paper doilies. In 1963 , the California state legislature passed tete Knox-Nisbet Act. This legislation created in each of California's counties a regulatory body known as Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) , With authority to review and approve (or deny) annexations, boundary changes , city incorporation and disincorporaticn, and the formation of special districts. In 1972 , the law was amended to require LAFCC's to prepare so called "Spheres of Influence" for each city and special district in the county. A sphere of influence was defined as "a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundary and service area of a local governmental agency." In 1985 , the state law was again greatly revised and expanded and re-adopted as the Cortese/Knox Governmental Reorganization Act of 198s (Ch. 56000 of the California Government Code) . In defining LAFCO function and the role of the Sphere of Influence, basic land use issues, as well as natters relating to intergovernmental structure were to be taken into consideration in the decision-making process. The legislative intent was clearly stated as requiring LAFCO to plan for the development of vacant and non-prime agricultural land within spheres, while preserving existing open space, agricultural farmland resources, ', and important environmental features outside of the spheres_ LAFCOfs are required to act in conjunction with the policies and objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act (ch. zl000 of the public Resources Code) , the California Coastal .set, and the Williamson Act. IT',' OF HNPO`i'0 I;P.HhJDE P. 15 � a � m �v � :E 5a3 ° noon< � moi ° a , � Q < m IV 3 _ - 0 am 0O � � <'O O Q Q a0 � Qa ° < =O � '0 O � OQ �� m cpQ OQm O A-Q G cO m a0o(7m,v ° � 0a = A Qo ? ` aOm ` �� 7� C > 0am3QmmmSo o Qlcm ?� AAmp _ a' Q3Qp0' Cm7 I� Q NS C= N 3 ^ in '1 7 9�� Vll�y m _Qso=� sCm mcm mQ->-am yo CD 0 mom7n u. 7�< OG7Aa-n0 G�mO Qa �O m0 - 0A CD OD �< nC, CL° � � oODc < �. Q m 0 .'� 0. 40m0O amm Q3OarcK70l< _. o:.e�ci.. - _ .. .^��,r'. �f�►�a�ns'T�sr� �„�-c- _yam-:. C ° 0 0 m m cn in N � 30CL 0 3 » o ? ° am , m � m @ j O Q aA ?� O r s m - T -� ma < smm3 N� m1 570 CD Z O 30amml � � _' o+ 570 m4� -nCA -ncn � � =5 -3 to - . C ? 4-4 r �� r— � v to 3 m � m MW m 0 cm t. , ° m C: 7 } Z t_mn m z ? .0aCLS mc aHvaa � QA �/• r i17 � � E ° L` -. -� 0 ac ° Om _ wMOMOq- -4n. > m <m > � m 3pom m g � �CL 3 0 m � � � 'Er lb r- ? m � m � � !E E_ Sa 2a� � � m 5- C) _� > 3 a ~ pd m sp o Z2ts- °m g =m �Ao �as • m 3 0 m n— ' a ? o � oacW AE ceC) zv� - nm o o m o o c � m 3 0 � �v•o o a � o � �m o 3 m m 7 o o m o m > oc 3K = m 3 • o si C, m to =r @ a� ��� m - o ® m < w e � _ ? � • m n � � 42c 3 c m C z - �_ c 3 a - :=3 mom = • g - ,n m n � ma < •c c �' c o v Y s-0 a � c m g 00 16 z ao m a - mo o � - m m ID -7 > o o sSa m o w j 6 c � mm ? D�- CD w3 � a3cm :: 0a _ 3- � � - ? o- a a omano • 3 g n � � c 4D nm � m • � m � '° ° c gm p • ID av � • m 3 0 = oc o "� o o a CL w p m � � � m � 0 < - a ? m c � = °► � 8 ��-, c Z p m m m m o m < m a .- p o m j 0 r ID < i N 3 _ ov? o Aim 3 0 o �m o v � m o n� a � sem'- o m sa m 3 m m o So co m m a m� v m a m < • A OCA � Cm ' a3 0 o osfo Q. - �gTL .. m a = • of o 3 0 c 40 C m m C m m C m n m m Q n m • f y = S p � cr X_ ID :, � m � p - , < '� a c .c cpm a s� =r e o � ID H Fs m 3m n Cpm r' o m o m w bTm Sv O m o ?� y no a 'm S � > > • m m m � = a! " � m a • � m = m m O c m ° �� o co m 3m�� T1' OF HPPOYO GPPNL c t-1-tib P. 18 The Ventura L.A.F. Commission has adopted two sets of policies that are the pillars of the planning program - and the key factors in making Ventura a livable environment: "The FactorsNecessary to Establish Spheres of Influence"; and, "The Guidelines For Urban Development" . THE FACTORS NBCFssAAY = B._.STAgISS,HPgF. M 4F IMMUID E The State law (Section 156425 of the California Government Code) established four factors that must be considered by local LAFCos in determining spheres of influence: {1] The present and planned land use in the area, including agricultural and open space_ [ 2 ) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3 ) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. [4] The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. In developing its Spheres of Influence, Ventura County went beyond these required considerations and adopted a more detailed set of criteria: [ 1) The maximum possible service area of the agency based upon present and possible service capacities of the agency. [21 The range of services the agency is providing or could provide_ [3 ) The projected future population growth of the area. [ 4) The type of development occurring or planned for the area, including, but not limited to, residential , commercial , and industrial development. [ S i The present and probable future service needs of the area. [ 61 Local governmental agencies presently providing services to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of services provided by such existing local governmental agencies. [71 The existence of social and economic interdependence and tthe interaction between the area within the boundaries of a local govern=ental agency and the area which sur_aunda it and 171' OF APP.O`(O GRANDE 30c� 03E6 P. 17 QEOCRAPHTC MSPECTT2VN Ventura County lies to the north and i=ediately adjacent -to Los Angeles County - an area identified with unprecedented and unguided growth in the post-war period. The Los Angeles basin has become the living definition of the terga "urban sprawl" , with more that 90 individual cities running together, totally devoid of urban form or identity. In the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's the same fate overtook the adjacent counties to the east and south - namely Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside. Ventura County, geographically separated from the Los Angeles basin by the Santa Konica mountains, was able to maintain its Simi-rural atmosphere well into the 1970'x. The establishment of Ventura LAFCO came at a time when fear of being overrun by Los Angeles overflow urban sprawl, and the loss of major agricultural/economic positions were high on the minds of both the Board of Supervisors and the newly appointed L.A.F. Commissioners. Spheres of Influence were viewed as resolving the basic p ie d tools for q issues that were confronting Ventura County. As such, they were concerned with questions of both land use and urban form, as well as. local governmental relationships. The land use aspects concern urban form, dansity and general planning concepts. The governmental structure aspects concern organization of local governments Which exist to provide public services and controls. Although the specific requirements for the establishment of spheres of influence were rooted in legislative mandates and interpretations, the motivation for undertaking and completing a comprehensive program rested with the Ventura commission and their sense of the fundamental issues of local government: encouraging the efficient distribution and utilization of resources; promoting equity and accountability in local decisions; establishing clear understanding between jurisdictions and resolving potential inter- governmental conflicts; and the overwhelming tear that if something were not done, Ventura Would and up looking like Los Angeles! THE IPECT-FICS OF THEyBl+iMM C09M PROQRM-:_ The L.A. F_ Commission viewed the challenge as comprehensive in nature. First, the Commission established 'Areas of Interest", dividing the more accessible southern portion of the County into planning districts. Each of these areas of interest has a city at its core. While areas of interest had no State mandated definition or criteria, they served Ventura County as the basic divisions for purpose of starting the Sphere of Influence process. The Spheres of Influence (already defined above) were further refined to provide "Urban Service Areas". . _ or 5-year annexation lines, which would relate to capital improvement programa of the cities and short-terga population projections. These are viewed as limited range planning tools to provide greater predictability to decisions on individual annexaticn proposals. =CP- 1-1'�'�c it �+ _ 1T�i' IIF iK:PU`(U UPHfyi_ _t _ _1�p17 P.�� services. within an area of interest, and within urban areas as delineated on the open Space Element of the County General Plan, property owners should be discouraged from making application to the county for urban land uses and be directed to the appropriate city to achieve their development objectives. Properties in the unincorporated area Which receive municipal services from a city should be annexed to that city, Annexation of unincorporated urban properties within a city's Sphere of Influence should be encouraged as a method of ensuring that existing urban land uses are located within municipal boundaries, provided that proposals to annex such properties should include supportive documents and active encouragement from the city. Existing unincorporated properties on the periphery of cities, which lack and would benefit from community sewers , should be encouraged and assisted in gaining that service from such cities. • Unincorporated urban areas should financially support local County-administered urban services which are comparable to those urban services provided ny cities_ Annexation to existing cities is preferable to the formation of new, or the expansion of existing, county service areas. COHCLIIS?Q$5 A TER TE74 Y The Spheres of Influence system and the Guidelines for orderly Development appear to be working for Ventura County. with few exceptions, the Guidelines have been followed- by LAFCO, the Board of. Supervisors of the County, and by the ten cities in the County. The separation of the cities has been enhanced by the creation of permanent agricultural greenbelts. Urban development has taken place in existing cities, or has been annexed to existing Cities prior to conversion from rural to urban uses . Probably the best measure of the success of the program is in economic terms_ Ventura County government is surprisingly strong financially, since i- is not obligated to provide urban levels of service based an a county tax base (which by its nature in California is rural-oriented) . The preservation of "prime agricultural land" has also had an economic effect on the County. Agriculture in Ventura County represents a billion Dollar industry, employing thousands of people, and bringing millions of Dollars to the local economy. Each acre of prime agricultural soil that is lost to urbanization represents a major step in the direction of loosing this vital economic resource. EP-�1-1'? c =i T' iF HRRO`r0 GFHrJDE =',t _ ;=U86 P. 11? which could be considered Within the agency's sphere of influence. [81 The existence of agricultural preserves in the area Which could be considered within an agency's sphere of influence and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such preserves in the event that such preserves are within the sphere of influence of a local governmental agency. ZMFLHUNTATIOg MR9MR "GMELIMM FOR OIRDE Y IDWELQFMQM- Once in place, the spheres of influence program required an overall implementation policy, and a commitment to the goals of a community separation and identity preservation program, open space and agricultural land preservation, and resource management. In order to accomplish this, Ventura LAFCO designed, and the Board of Supervisors of the county and the city councils of the ten cities adopted, a series of principals known as "The Guidelines For Orderly Development" . . The adoption of these guidelines allowed and encouraged cities to exercise municipal responsibility within established spheres, and clarified the roles of local agencies in extra-territorial land use planning. The guidelines also served to facilitate a better understanding between the cities and the County planning and land use regulation programs . The County, in adopting the Guidelines as a part of the General Plan agreed to protect the cities by not allowing any use that was more intense, or at lower development standards, than the identified city in the sphere. Finally, the Guidelines have provided a unique approach to encouraging urbanization projects to occur witain cities and to evolve a regional approach to County government. Specifically, the "Guidelines For Orderly Development" state: IIrba.n development should occur within incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services. To be timely, Urban development in those areas of interest within which a city exists should be adjacent or legally annexable to the city, and should be developed only within the city. Within a city's area of interest, land uses which would be allowed by the County should be equal to or more restrictive than those land uses allowed by the city. Within a city's area of interest, development standards and costs imposed by the County should be not less than those required by the city. A significant measure of the appropriateness of a change from a rural to an urban land use is the existence of urban IJF1-1PP[I i'l l -F_'R4E1E 10.86P.71 • Most iMportant to the process, the people of the County generally support the efforts of LAFCo and rscognize that t.Iie "life-styl--f, that brought them to this County could easily be destroyed by greed or inaction. • TOTAL P.21 �►��P`�T?�!NPO. ,.�,.'._1_„_,_ THE WRITTEN REPORT FOR THIS ITEM WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE SEPTEMBER 27TH MEETING AG'VENDA 0. Date Action PRESENTATION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND JPA The City of Paso Robles staff will present a brief oral report on this item. ;y City of Morro Bay ADMINISTRATION • 595 HARBOR STREET, MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA '93442 805 772 6200 MEMORANDUM AGEND,ANQ. � September 21, 1995 7/ To: The City Councils of San Luis Obispo County From: William Yates, Mayor- Morro Bay Recommendation: That the seven City Councils of San Luis Obispo County agree to meet annually to discuss matters that affect the cities and that the 1996 meeting be held in the City of San Luis Obispo. Discussion: The mayors of the seven cities of San Luis Obispo County meet regularly to discuss matters that affect all cities. During these meetings, it has become clear that in order to affect changes that would ultimately benefit all cities, we must get together and communicate with one another. It is felt by the mayors that without unity among the cities, we will continue to remain in a relatively weak position when it comes to negotiating with other agencies. These future meetings will cause, the mayors believe, a unification of our voices that will provide strength to attaining our common goals. San Luis Obispo Mayor Allen Settle has graciously offered to host the 1996 meeting in his City. The City of Morro Bay is dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of our quality of life, and strives to provide a level of municipal service and safety consistent with and responsive to the needs of the public.