Loading...
1992/02/11 City Council MinutesRohnert Park City Council Minutes February 11, 1992 The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Spiro presiding. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Spiro called the regular session to order at approximately 6:45 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Mayor Spiro advised that a closed session commenced this evening at 6:00 p.m. to discuss personnel matters. She said no action was taken and there was nothing to report at this time. ROLL CALL Present: (5) Councilmembers Eck, Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Reilly, and Mayor Spiro Absent: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner, Finance Director Harrow, Community Resource Specialist Vander Vennet, and Tobacco Project Coordinator Woodward. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Councilmember Hopkins, seconded by Councilmember Hollingsworth, the minutes of January 28, 1992 were unanimously approved as submitted. Approval of Bills Mayor Spiro referenced the list of bills and questioned check Nos. 45486, 45628, and 45661 and asked if staff is continuing to make efforts toward use of local businesses for City purchases to which City Manager Netter responded 'yes' and confirmed he would check on the procedures regarding the above- questioned items. Upon motion by Councilmember Hopkins, seconded by Councilmember Hollingsworth, bills presented per the attached list in the amount of $1,708,742.62 were unanimously approved. Non - agendaed Mayor Spiro queried if any Councilmember had any non - agendaed Matters items to add to the agenda. Councilman Eck said he had one miscellaneous item to add under Matters from Council. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (2) February 11, 1992 Councilman Reilly said he had intended to discuss one item under comcunications regarding letter from Keith Hallock and said he would comment under scheduled public appearances when Mr. Hallock is scheduled to speak. Mayor Spiro said she had two items to add under miscellaneous matters from Council. Unscheduled Public Mayor Spiro stated that in compliance with State Law (The Appearances Brown Act), anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment may do so at this time. In most cases under legislation of the new Brown Act, the Council cannot handle an item without agendizing. To ensure accurate recording, "Speaker Cards" are provided at the entrance of the Chamber and unscheduled public appearances are requested to fill out the cards and present to recording clerk after speaking. No one responded. C O N S E N T C A L E N D A R Mayor Spiro queried if anyone had any questions regarding the matters on the Consent Calendar which were explained in the City Manager's Council Meeting Memo. Councilman. Eck requested the removal of Resolution No. 92 -28 from the Consent Calendar. Council agreed. Acknowledging the City Manager /Clerk's report on the posting of the agenda. Resolution No.92 -22 A RESOLUTION OF RESPECT FOR CLYDE E. CHESNEY Resolution No.92 -23 A RESOLLM -ioN OF THE CITY CU-MIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK PROCLAIWNG FEBRUARY 16 -22, 1992 AS "BIG BROTHERS /BIG SISTERS APPRECIATION WEEK" Resolution No.92 -24 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SEALED PROPOSATS. "A" PARK RAT.T.F° PT.i) LIGHTING, PRojECT NO. 1990 -5 - - J -- • -- - - -- - -� Resolution No.92 -25 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING CITY ENGINEER TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION, OVERLAYS - 1991, PROJECT NO. 1991 -3 Resolution No.92 -26 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY AND P.U.E. FRCM CODDING ENTERPRISES FOR ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY Resolution No.92 -27 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK EXTENDING THE BID OPENINGS FOR THE EXERCISE EQUIPNENT FOR THE EXERCISE ROOM IN THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (3) February 11, 1992 Resolution No.92 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK REJECTING APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM AND CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RE. ERICA ANDERSON (DUE TO LATE FILING) Upon motion by Councilmember Hopkins, seconded by Councilmember Hollingsworth, with the exception of Resolution No. 92 -28, the Consent Calendar as outlined on the meeting's agenda was unanimously approved. Resolution No.92 -28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK EXTENDING THE BID OPENINGS FOR THE COMBINATION SEWER AND STORM DRAIN RODDING AND VACUUM CLEAN -UP VEHICLE Councilman Eck queried if the purchase of the rodding and vacuum clean -up vehicle was consistent with previous discussions regarding budget constraints and necessity to purchase only mandatory items. City Mhnager Netter reviewed condition of current ten year old equipment regarding excessive cost of repairs and advisability of replacement. He informed Council that the purchase would be from the Sewer Fund and would not inQact the General Fund. Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 92 -28 was waived and said resolution was adopted. Resolution No.92 -30 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPOINTING REPLACEMENT REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SONOMA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY City Manger Netter explained the resolution appointing replacement representatives to the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) designating Councilman Eck as the City's representative on the Board of Directors and Councilman Hopkins to serve as alternate, unless otherwise indicated by Council at this time. Discussion followed during which Councilman Hopkins consented to serve as SCTA alternate. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, reading of Resolution No. 92 -30 was waived and said resolution was adopted. "Caring at Christmas" City Manager Netter introduced Lieutenant Jack Shields to Certificates of represent several members of City departments to receive Appreciation Certificates of Appreciation from "Caring at Christmas Program" as reviewed at the previous Council meeting. Mayor Spiro presented Certificates of Appreciation from "Caring at Christmas Program" to Lieutenant Jack Shields Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (4) February 11, 1992 representing Rohnert Park Volunteer Firefighters Assn., Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, and Rohnert Park Police Officers Assn. and asked Lt. Shields to relay Council's gratitude to those involved in the fine efforts and dedication to the "Caring at Christmas Program ". Lt. Shields expressed appreciation on behalf of the three referenced groups. Scheduled Public Appearances: 1) Lewis Kuehm for Lewis Kuehm, 1406 Gregory Court, President of Founder's Day Founder's Days Assn. Association, introduced representative Toni Beach and shared contents of copies distributed to Council of various flyers, newspaper ad for Senior Citizen's "Sweetheart of a Deal" subscription offer from the Clarion, and Mr. Kuehm's memo regarding goals, means and funding support for a 30th Birthday 4th of July Celebration for the City (copy attached to original set of these minutes). W. Kuehm responded to various Council questions regarding the need for financial support from the community for fireworks and clarified that Council approved funds would not be used for fireworks. W. Kuehm requested Council approval of seed money in the amount of $5,000 toward efforts for the 4th of July and the City's 30th Birthday Celebration and said there would be separate accounts for Founder's Days Events and, therefore, tonight's request is separate from forthcoming request to Council from Founder's Days Assn. for $7,000 to be presented during July budget review for Founder's Days events in September. Discussion followed during which W. Kuehm said the Stadium has been reserved for the 4th of July event. Ideas were exchanged regarding ways to encourage community participation and financial contributions from the public toward the success of this event, such as distributing flyers at schools, stopping traffic to ask for donations similar to Tahoe City approach that proved very successful, donation cans or jars in stores, etc. City Manager Netter confirmed $5,000 was allocated last year to Founder's Days Assn. and that no funds have been a l l ocat ---i j7et ±ch i c y ew, fv� TZ-1- i� - -----i 3-3 t- Council inquiry and said Founder's Days Assn. was able to return $2,000 of the $5,000 advance last year for the September Founder's Days event, re- confirmed that it is the intention that the fireworks be underwritten by the citizens, and reviewed comparisons of costs for fireworks programs in other cities from $7,500 to $18,000. Further comments included Council suggestion to incorporate veterans groups in this effort. A motion was made by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, to advance seed money in the amount of $5,000 to Founder's Day Assn. for the City's 30th Birthday 4th of July Celebration. The funds would be paid back by local donations collected. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (5) February 11, 1992 2) Keith Hallock Keith Hallock, 1500 Baumgardner, Santa Rosa, said it was his hope through his comments tonight to stimulate interest in affordable housing, and referenced his proposal for affordable housing project on Snyder Lane which was included in discussion at previous Council meeting. W. Hallock reviewed recent conversation with City of Santa Rosa representative Miles Ferris regarding sewer capacity wherein he was informed there was up to 1 million gallons surplus capacity, which is not actually considered surplus, but available provision to meet com mity needs up to five years into the future. He said he is trying to find out if there is a way to use a portion of that capacity in connection with his affordable housing proposal and asked if it is as simple as moving some numbers from one area to another. He also asked if there were some kind of outside sewer possibilities that could preclude annexation for an his proposed affordable housing project. Mayor Spiro expressed appreciation to Mr. Hallock for his letter dated January 30, 1992 as listed on tonight's Communications regarding this matter. Mayor Spiro said research of the matter has shown since the mid -70's, there has only been six annexations to Rohnert Park which involved three commercial and three residential. She referenced content of discussion with W. Hallock as reviewed at previous Council meeting, confirmed that she is very much in favor of affordable housing, said it is the method of getting from point A to point B in the process that requires necessary planning. Mayor Spiro said consideration would have to be given to the total area and potential projects surrounding W. Hallock's proposal including plans for park fees, etc. Discussion followed. Council and staff responded to further questions from Mr. Hallock regarding procedure and confirmed continual communications with City of Santa Rosa regarding sewer capacity of the Member Agencies. Comments continued confirming efforts of General Plan Council Committee Members Hollingsworth and Eck which included review of sewer capacity and the proposed retrofit program. The necessity of reviewing the total picture was reviewed with confirmation that W. Hallock's proposal would be discussed with other proposals in the General Plan process in July. City Manager Netter responded Director of Public Works /City on TAC Committee and explained regarding sewer capacity. to Council questions regarding Engineer Brust's participation the agreement with Santa Rosa Discussion followed in which Council concurred to have staff report on sewer capacity of Santa Rosa Subregional Waste Water System at the next Council meeting on February 25th, 1992. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (6) February 11, 1992 Potbelly Pigs City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff report with attachments dated January 28, 1992 regarding Potbelly Pigs and shared contents therein as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. He said a draft ordinance was provided for Council's review regarding this matter if the desire is to proceed with it, however, it is staff's recommendation not to do so for the various reasons as outlined. Mr. Netter said a public hearing had been scheduled at this time regarding interest of permitting potbelly pigs in residential zones in the City. Public Hearing Mayor Spiro opened the public hearing at approximately 7:34 p.m. Jim Clark Jim Clark, 80 Walnut Circle, said he had studied the proposed pig ordinance and was against letting the pigs come into the community because of squealing, biting and rooting. He said he did not care to live next to someone that has a pig and that the nature of pigs is not like a dog, but more like a cat that does not want to be domesticated. Mr. Clark reviewed example of experience from his dad raising pigs including necessity to hog tie, use of electric prod, biting and excessive feces. He referenced documentation attached to staff report from qualified people discouraging pet miniature pigs due to associated infectious disease and pointed out that there is currently no vaccine available for some of the diseases the pigs carry. Mr. Clark gave various other examples to discourage pigs as pets, said people that already have pigs as pets is another matter, the additional responsibility should not be put on the Public Safety Department, pigs are not compatible with other pets such as dogs, and suggested Council not pass the proposed ordinance and not allow pigs in the City. He said when you put the pig in the parlor, you still have the pig. Kitty Collins Kitty Collins, 828 Lilac Way, inquired about the origination of the above- referenced staff report since she understood from her inquiry at the Animal Control Department that its opinions from that department had not been requested. City Manager Netter responded that staff rernrmvmeja+ i nn_c r -nrrb_ .rte 1 €v-^M r; 4- .. Manager's office as a result of research efforts involved, and are then directed to various departments, not vice versa. Ms. Collins compared contents of staff report research material from San Jose with information from her packet provided to Council, as previously reviewed at the January 14th Council meeting, and said there were contradictions in the two reports. Regarding no rabies vaccine, Appendix I from Department of Health Services, Infectious Disease Branch, states that pigs have a high degree of natural resistance to rabies infection. There has never been a case of human transmittal of rabies from pigs. The pigs described by the previous speaker related to commercial pigs; the reference to exotic animals in the San Jose report was regarding pigs from Asia which are not allowed in the states without required Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (7) February 11, 1992 testing and vaccination and are not the type of pigs shown at the previous Council meeting; in regard to squealing, the above- referenced report from Department of Health Services states that the squealing is reserved only to situations in which the potbelly pig is truly frightened, severely restrained or abused in some fashion; regarding disease from flesh scratch or bone cut, this applies only to commercial industry of pigs; regarding removal of tusks recommended in City staff report, if the potbelly pig is neutered, there will not be tusks; and, feces output depends on feeding. Ms. Collins encouraged Council to read the information provided in her previous packet because the enclosed material contained unbiased reports and said she guessed there was a difference of opinion between her presentation and the City staff report. She distributed to Council a petition of 279 signatures supporting potbelly pigs as pets, obtained through no special effort, but left on the counter at work. There being no one further desiring to speak, Mayor Spiro closed the public hearing at approximately 7:45 p.m. Discussion followed wherein comparisons were made with nuisance of dog barking to pig squealing. Consideration was given to pig abatement possibilities if neighborhood nuisance developed. Confirmation of approximately six potbelly pigs currently in the comtunity, and consideration to "grandfather" the approval of those pigs, with response from City Attorney Flitner that this approach would be granting a variance to the City's existing ordinance which prohibits pigs in the City. Mr. Flitner responded to further Council questions and considerations that a limited use permit approach could be taken, but there would be a problem with application only to the six referenced pigs which may be an equal protection argument. Further discussion followed confirming no complaints to date of the potbelly pigs currently in the comiuni ty for about two years, that the danger aspect of pet pigs does not seem to compare to that of pit bulls, and that the price of the potbelly pigs would be a limiting factor. Ordinance No. 554 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK PROVIDING FOR THE (introduction) KEEPING OF POTBELLIED PIGS IN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Upon motion by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, subject to inclusion in the ordinance of items as recommended by staff including Use Permit language by City Attorney, Ordinance No. 554 was introduced. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, and unanimously approved, amending above motion to remove requirement of cement slab for a pig run as recommended for Ordinance No. 554 and clarify that said ordinance, if adopted, would be upon a trial basis of one year. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (8) February 11, 1992 RECESS Mayor Spiro declared a recess at approximately 7:55 p.m. RECONVENE Vice Mayor Hollingsworth reconvened the Council meeting at approximately 8:05 p.m. in the absence of Mayor Spiro, due to conflict of interest on the next agenda item, with all other Councilmembers present. Stop Tobacco Access City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of for Minors Project letter dated February 5, 1992 from North Bay Health Resources (STAMP) Center regarding Stop Tobacco Access for Minors Project (STAND) as reviewed in the Council Nbeting Memo and introduced STAMP representative Judith Erickson to give a presentation regarding same. Mr. Netter said staff recommends Council action on this matter be deferred until a complete report is available from the City's tobacco grant project through the Healthy Cities Program which emphasis is small business and employee tobacco use, and is centered on a voluntary /non- regulatory approach. Because the Small Business Grant Program deals with some of the same business owners, staff suggested deferral to avoid confusion and possible undermining of the Small Business Grant Program. Judith Erickson, Comnmity Education Specialist for STAMP, said she was here tonight at the request of the Rohnert Park Smoking Project Steering Committee that has operated in Rohnert Park for the last one and a half years. She shared contents of above - referenced material requesting Council's support of an ordinance regulating the sale of tobacco products to protect the health of minors. Ms. Erickson said the voluntary approach has been unsuccessfully tried and, therefore, the ordinance proposal is now offered for Council consideration. She responded to various Council questions and said a similar ordinance was approved in Sebastopol. Discussion followed regarding additional responsibility that weuld be placed ors merchants and Public Safety Dept. with enactment of proposed ordinance, statement by City Attorney Flitner regarding overlay of State law with another local law, confirmation that Penal Code 308 prohibits sale of tobacco to minors, and comparison with mPrrh?nt.s rhr?rkinrr r D 's for alcohol sales. Suggestion was made to introduce the proposed ordinance and inform businesses about ramifications thereof prior to scheduling a public hearing for same. A motion was made by Councilman Reilly to introduce the proposed tobacco control ordinance. Said motion died for lack of a second. City Manager Netter reviewed further the difference between the voluntary and regulatory tobacco control programs. He said a lot of businesses are voluntarily participating in tobacco control efforts which include items as listed in No. 1 and 2, and that requirements like No. 3 of the proposed ordinance, which prohibits self service tobacco sales and open Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (9) February 11, 1992 displays of tobacco by tobacco retailers, would have a financial inpact on local businesses. Mr. Netter suggested representative from STAMP meet with local businesses to get input on this item, which they have not done. Mr. Netter requested that Council wait to introduce the proposed ordinance until after review of complete staff report from the City's tobacco grant project through the Healthy Cities Program. Further discussion followed during which Councilman Hopkins questioned enforcement of the proposed ordinance and said it would not be worth the efforts involved for same. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, directing the proposed tobacco control ordinance be placed back on the Council agenda in two weeks to allow time for completed staff report from the City's tobacco grant project, and approved by the following vote: *CORRECTION from 2/25/92 AYES: (3) Councilmen Eck, Hollingsworth, and Reilly City Council meeting: NOES: (1) Councilman Hopkins ABSENT: (1) Mayor Spiro * "Mayor Spiro Returns Mayor Spiro returned to the Council Chamber to preside over the remainder of the meeting at approximately 8:27 p.m." Open Space District David Hansen, General Manager of Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District referenced plans on display and said copies were distributed to Council of the District's informative flyer, as well as outline and Timetable of the Final Acquisition Plan adopted in concept October 29, 1991 (copies attached to original set of these minutes). He shared contents therein regarding the elements of the Acquisition Plan and how the plan affects the incorporated cities of the county. He said he has been sitting on the Committee regarding this matter along with Rohnert Park Councilman Dave Eck. Mr. Hansen said it is a pleasure to be involved with the project and to be working with County, city staffs, and city councils. He responded to various Council questions and said the materials distributed tonight provide an opportunity for Rohnert Park to participate in the acquisition plan; that there is still another month of time for this opportunity; and information will be forthcoming regarding public hearing showing priorities. Mr. Hansen said there are three potential work shops with Cotati, Sonoma, and Windsor, and responded to Councilman Eck's inquiry that it is not too late to establish a Cotati/Rohnert Park joint work shop and that the flyers could still be prepared accordingly. Education Foundation City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated January 30, 1992 from Education Foundation requesting donation of Sports Center membership and pool membership for its "Auction 1992" which has been done for the past couple of years. He said this Auction has been a Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (10) February 11, 1992 tremendous success and staff recommends authorizing the donations again this year which amounts to $125.00 for a Family Pool Membership and $360.00 for a Family Sports Membership for a total donation amount of $485.00. Upon motion by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, donation to Education Foundation for "Auction 1992" as requested and as recommended by staff, was unanimously approved. Financial Review City Manager Netter said copies were provided to Council of 1) staff report dated January 24, 1992 regarding 6 Month Review of Actual Revenues and Expenditures to Budget, and 2) staff report dated February 7, 1992 regarding Estimated 1991 -92 Financial Data. Finance Director Harrow reviewed contents therein. Mr. Harrow and W. Netter responded to various Council questions confirming necessary restraints due to economic conditions and tight budget caused by continuing recession. Speculations were discussed regarding potential revenues from new retail developments in the City. City Manager Netter distributed copies to Council of "Cal -Tax News" research bulletin dated November 15, 1991 regarding Lighting and Landscape District information (copy attached to original set of these minutes). W. Netter said this type of assessment was reviewed at a previous Council meeting wherein Council decided not to pursue it at the time, but directed the matter be brought back for further review and consideration after the first of the year. Councilman Hollingsworth requested staff provide a potential last of budgetary options to Council for consideration prior to the next budget review and said, if it comes to actually passing further taxes on any citizen, he would cast a negative vote. He said the City will have to cut back rather than look into other tax rrnas7res +rat tt,oro I -11A I— . 4— -, _ --- - ---- -- ---'_r ..- ...... ... w�v ..vu aic rwaya w yct. Id LC community involved through various service projects, and that preference would be to getting everybody behind the budget without further taxing. Councilman Reilly requested the above staff report listing budgetary options include current and past loss comparisons of major programs. Discussion followed regarding financial aspects of the Performing Arts Center during which Councilman Eck suggested that the Council Committee should meet to review the matter more fully regarding alternatives, including the possibility of privatization of the operation. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (11) February 11, 1992 Bingo Licenses City Manager Netter reviewed the status of Bingo Licenses as outlined in the Council Meeting Memo provided for Council's information. He said staff recommends annual audits to maintain compliance. Staff has authorized and approved licensing of all the organizations with the exception of one, which is close to compliance and should be licensed within the next thirty days. Transportation matters: City Manager Netter reviewed transportation matters listed on the agenda as outlined in the Council Meeting Memo as follows: 1) Northwest Pacific Railroad Right of Way (NWPRR) Purchase including (a) letter dated January 30, 1992 from Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District regarding NWPRR in Merin and Sonoma Counties, and (b) letter dated January 16, 1992 from Board of Supervisors of Merin County requesting response /direction to the Merin Trans - portation Authority regarding establishment of a joint powers agency. Discussion followed during which concerns were expressed regarding the creation of another JPA to which City Manager Netter responded that the County Board of Supervisors approved the proposal of the task force this morning with the creation of another entity to own and possibly operate on the right of way. He also said that by City Council consensus at a previous meeting, it was agreed to participate in the right of way purchase. Mr. Netter said further information on the matter would be forthcoming and anticipated this would be a topic at the next Mayors' and Councilrnembers' meeting. (2) MM Uumt Transit Needs Policy including (a) letter dated January 22, 1992 from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) revised policy; (b) Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) letter and recommendation, and (c) SCTA recommendation regarding Development of Sales Tax Measure; and suggested another letter from the Mayor be sent recommending no charge in MTC's existing unmet transit needs policy. Council concurred. In reference to SCTA sales tax measure, City Manager Netter suggested that the City Council representative keep Council apprised on the matter and recommnded backing off of the issue until reception of a future SCTA tax proposal is mire positive. Tow Service Policy City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of City Attorney Flitner memorandum dated May 30, 1990 regarding Towing Services confirming extensive State laws regarding same. He said this item was brought forth from the previous Council meeting due to a complaint filed by letter from Gary A. Francesconi that has been resolved to the satisfaction Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (12) February 11, 1992 of Mr. Francesconi. W. Netter responded to various Council questions regarding adherence to towing service requirements and confirmed that staff would follow -up on same to see if there is a need to tighten up on enforcement. Cable TV increase City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of in rates letter dated February 1, 1992 from MzltiVision Cable TV Corp. regarding notice of increased rates armounting to a 5.3% increase for basic service effective April 1, 1992 as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo. He said MultiVision repre- sentative Fran Parkey was available at tonight's meeting to respond to Council questions. Discussion followed during which Fran Parkey, General Manager of MaltiVision, responded to Council comment regarding recent legislation passed by Congress deregulating cable television, that the information that has come to them is, basically, that the President will veto that type of law and, therefore, Council's guess is as good as hers as to what will happen regarding this matter. Ms. Parkey responded to Council questions and explained rate increases as reviewed in her above- referenced letter. She confirmed that, as a practical matter, it would not be cost effective for another company to compete with providing cable TV, especially regarding necessary overlay installations. She pointed out that there is language in the cable TV agreement that allows Rohnert Park to take advantage of any new laws or regulations. Further discussion followed. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Reilly, and unanimously approved, to write letters over the Mayor's signature to Congressman Riggs and President Bush encouraging restoration of local regulation for cable TV. General Plan Update Council Committee Member Eck said the General Plan Council Committee comprised of himself and Councilman Hollingsworth met recently with staff and referenced copies provided to Council of reccmmrnndat.ierns in twrD Staff rer„-t� A=ted Feb ,I=-ry 7, 1992 regarding General Plan Citizen Participation Process, and General Plan Costs and Time Line. Councilman Eck recommended proceeding as outlined and advertise, accordingly, that Council will be making General Plan Committee appointments. City Manager Netter referenced the schedule on page 3 of the General Plan Costs and Time Line report and reviewed the list of consultants recommended including Earth Metrics Inc., Illingworth & Rodkin, Freilich /Stone et.al., etc. and pointed out the cost advantage of hiring Earth Metrics Inc. because this firm prepared the EIR for the previous General Plan update and, therefore, already has data banks to proceed with a new update. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (13) February 11, 1992 Discussion followed regarding the possibility of additional General Plan town meetings and confirmation from developer regarding contribution of funds for cost of a General Plan update with preparation of agreement by legal specialist regarding same. Upon motion by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, the General Plan Costs and Time Line proposal and the hiring of Consultants Earth Metrics and Illingworth & Rodkin as recommended by staff, was unanimously approved. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman. Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, to establish a General Plan Committee, put a notice in the local newspaper to solicit citizens for appointment to this Committee, and set the process in motion for General Plan citizen participation. Hamilton Field City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of Project Notice of Preparation dated January 31, 1992 from City of Novato regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report for Hamilton Field and shared contents therein as reviewed in the Council Meeting Memo specifying response to this notice by March 4, 1992. It was the consensus of Council that a letter of response be prepared commenting that the EIR should address concerns regarding jobs and housing balance issues. Communications Communications per the attached outline were brought to the attention of the City Council. No action was taken unless specifically noted in these minutes. 1) Councilman Eck referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated January 16, 1992 from Assemblyman Tom Umberg regarding AB 935 legislation relating to mobilehomes and expressed concerns on the issue. A motion was made by Councilman Eck, seconded by Councilman Hollingsworth, and unanimously approved, to write a letter of response regarding AB 935 over the Mayor's signature indicating disagreement with the Committee on this issue and request very clear language in the bill with reference to State laws and local ordinances. 2) Councilman Reilly referenced letter from John Young with attached comments of various citizens supporting west side annexation and recommended a letter of response be prepared clarifying the concerns expressed regarding water, sewer, etc. in that the City does not pay for these provisions. 3) Mayor Spiro referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated February 10, 1992 from Leadership Rohnert Park (LRP) inviting Council to participate in a panel discussion on February 20, 1992 and asked if this constituted a Council meeting. City Attorney Flitner responded that if three or more Councilmembers attend, it would be constituted a meeting Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (14) February 11, 1992 and confirmed to Council inquiry that tonight's meeting could be adjourned to the specified time and date to enable the full Council to participate in the panel discussion. Discussion followed during which three Councilmembers signified they would be able to attend. Council agreed to adjourn tonight's meeting to 11:00 a.m, on February 20, 1992 for Leadership Rohnert Park panel discussion at the City Council Chambers unless otherwise notified by Councilman Eck following contact with LRP Director Dawna Gallagher. City Manager's Report: 1) City Manager Netter referenced copies provided to Council of staff mew dated January 24, 1992 from Community Resource Specialist Vander Vennet regarding the 24 Hour City Hall local government information kiosk and said Council probably noticed the kiosk on display in the lobby outside the Council Chamber. Discussion followed regarding the innovative possibilities of the kiosk, confirmation by City Manager that the cost would be approximately $25,000, acknowledgment of current restraints on the budget and, therefore, this item was reviewed for Council's information. 2) City Manager Netter said it would be necessary to defer the item regarding the new Public Safety Building /Architect's contract because the matter has not been finalized. He said this item was mentioned at the previous Council meeting, staff is working with the architects regarding request for additional funds due to delays in the project, and staff recommendation will follow later. 3) City Manager Netter reviewed City policy on plaques for certain city parks /dedications, etc. and explained costs for providing same. He said the "R" Park dedication would be scheduled soon and asked if Council wanted to reconsider this policy because of current budget restraints. Council concurred not to change the policy with comments that this provision is part of the history of the City and provides a valuable memento for the citizens of Rohnert Park that have taken part in an occasion. 4 ) City Manager Netter said roni ac uavra r rncYided t^ Colin ill Manager r - - - r.�... . of letter dated January 9, 1991 from KRCB -TV, Channel 22 regarding 1) San Francisco Chronicle November article announcing KRCB as a Cotati station and Channel 22's ongoing effort to have that corrected, and 2) proposal for site purchase. Mr. Netter said he had a recent discussion with Channel 22 General Manager Nancy Dobbs regarding the site purchase proposal and a report will be finalized later for Council's review and consideration. 5) City Manager Netter said Scouts for Government Day will be scheduled on the next Council agenda. 6) City Manager Netter said he would be out of town February 19, 20 & 21, 1992 for a REMQF seminar. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (15) February 11, 1992 City Attorney's Report: 1) City Attorney Flitner referenced copies provided to Council of letter dated January 27, 1992 from Law Offices of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman of Tarzana (Los Angeles) regarding League of California Cities request for Amicus Curiae Brief for Small vs. County of Orange. Mr. Flitner reviewed the case as outlined regarding the attack of a mountain lion at a park in Orange County relating to natural condition immanity. He said the case could be applicable to locations like Crane Park or City creeks. A motion was made by Councilman Hopkins, seconded by Councilman Eck, and unanimously approved, directing City Attorney to participate in the Amicus Curiae Brief for Small vs. County of Orange. 2) City Attorney Flitner referred to the Nbbile Home Rent Control matter and said Judge Weinstein has ruled, and with the exception of only one issue, all other items are resolved. He said the remaining issue is regarding Rancho Verde Nbbile Home Park and %bat base rent should be established before finalizing the damages and completing the decision. When the Judge's decision is made regarding this issue, it will be possible to proceed with the appeal as planned. Matters from Council: 1) City Manager Netter said the Sonoma County Transit item was regarding Councilman Hopkins' proposal for elderly taxi service. He said staff is still checking on this. 2) Councilman Eck referred to suggestions made earlier regarding T -Zones which allows for mobile home parks. He said he directed staff to check into T- Zoning and thought it would be a good idea to find out what Council Committee's thoughts were regarding same. In addition, Councilman Eck suggested that Rural Residential Zones be considered and that these items should be discussed by the General Plan Committee. 3) Councilman Eck requested the Cultural Arts matter be placed on the next agenda as he is ready to make his appointment. 4 ) Mayor Spiro said she would like to attend the League of California Cities Regional Children's Summit in Santa Rosa on Friday, March 6, 1992 and, therefore, appointed herself as the City representative for same. Council agreed. 5) Mayor Spiro said the Joint Meeting with the School District is scheduled for March 31st, 1992. Council recommended agenda items as follows: (1) School District boundaries pertaining to annexations; (2) History of School District /City coordination; (3) Recreation of City Schools Coordinating Committee; (4) Joint City Hall site project; (5) Landscaping along south side of High School; (6) B Park landscaping; and (7) School Patrols. Rohnert Park City Council Minutes (16) February 11, 1992 6) City Manager Netter asked if Council desired to schedule a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission which has been done annually about this time of year in the past. Council responded that joint meetings with City Commissions are not necessary unless requested by a Commission for particular concerns. City Manager Netter said he would check with Recreation Director Pekkain regarding the matter. 7) Mayor Spiro said the 44th Annual Miss Sonoma County Pageant is scheduled at the Rohnert Park Performing Arts Center on Saturday, February 22nd, 1992 (RSVP's by Feb. 17) with reception at 6:30 p.m. and Pageant at 8:00 p.m.. Councilman Hopkins said he would be unable to attend as he was committed to attend the Redwood Empire Division Meeting on the same date. 8) Founders' Days representative Lewis Kuehm requested Council approval of fireworks for the City's 30th Birthday 4th of July Celebration. Upon motion by Councilman Hollingsworth, seconded by Councilman Hopkins, fireworks as requested by Founders' Days Assn. for the 30th Birthday 4th of July event subject to proper permits and approved location at the Rohnert Park Stadium, was unanimously approved. Unscheduled Public Mayor Spiro asked if anyone in the audience wished to make an Appearances appearance at this time. Jim Clark Jim Clark, 80 Walnut Circle, referenced the potbelly pigs reviewed previously, and requested a permit charge of approximately $50 be charged to ensure coverage of additional costs to the City. Council responded that, if the ordinance is adopted, residents desiring to have a pet pig would be required to purchase a license as well as obtain a use permit. George Horwedel George Horwedel, 7669 Camino Colegio, referenced Cable TV letters to Congressman Riggs and President Bush previously directed by Council regarding local regulation and recommended that a thirY3 letter also him written to fiyiyia Sagal in i4 rin County who has started a Cable TV Committee, wants to restore local cable TV regulations, and recently had a meeting with Tim Smith regarding this matter. Adjournment Mayor Spiro adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:12 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. on February 20th at the Council Chambers for Leadership Rohnert Park panel discussion. zanj/� �ea Der Ci Clerk yo ROHNERT PARK FOUNDER'S DAY ASSOCIATION 6020 Commerce Blvd., Suite 121 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 584 -1415 TO: FROM: RE: Goals: 'L6 42 Rohnert Park City Council Feb. 11, 1992 Lew Kuehm, President, Founder's Day Association 30th Birthday Celebrations for our City 1. Involve as many RP citizens as possible. 2. Help build a sense of pride among our citizens. 3. Plan and carry out celebrations worthy of our fine City. 4. Help build a stronger sense of patriotism locally. Means: 1. Seek much input from citizens of all ages. (Example: THEME CONTEST) 2. Publicize events as thoroughly as possible. (newspaper articles, ads; radio input, TV "Bulletin Board ") 3. Encourage businesses to have "30th birthday" sales, promotions. (Clarion Circulation Manager, Gerald Baker, has set the pace with subscription special already announced - see copy) 4. Plan and carry out the best possible Fourth of July event. (Fireworks by donation, not using City funds for fireworks) 5. Plan and have'the best Founder's Day Parade ever. 6. Plan and have the best possible Founder's Days in Alicia Park. 7. Seek,out groups within RP to feature the City 30th birthday: Kitchen Kutups -'20th anniversary concerts Barber shop singers concert Sports events with special championships Etc. Funding support 1. City of Rohnert Park: $5000 now, $7000 between July & Sept. 2. Sonoma County: Advertising funds: $1500 for each event. At least four events anticipated. Total $6000. 3. Special large donations from philanthropic citizens. OUTLINE AND TIMETABLE OF THE FINAL ACQUISITION PLAN ADOPTED IN CONCEPT: OCtober 29, 1991 10/22/91 OUTLINE FOR THE SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ACQUISITION PLAN 1) PREAMBLE The plan introduction will give background on the formation of the District, and spell out the basic elements and process of the Acquisition Plan. It will also delineate the acquisition process itself. This information will include; a) What the public voted for in Measures A & C, b) Documents and charts showing the interrelationship of the District Board, Authority Board, Advisory Committee, staff and public - `The Players Setting Up and Implementing the Plan,' C) Documents and charts showing the acquisition process from interest in a particular property to close of escrow, and d) Pertinent elements of the District's Interim Acquisition Plan. 2) CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING PLANS CODES & REGULATIONS a) The Acquisition Plan for the District will be approved by the Open Space Authority to assure that it is in conformity with its Expenditure Plan. The Authority's Plan will become an attachment to the District Plan. b) Relationship to the Agricultural Resources, Open Space and Resource Conservation Elements of the adopted 1989 County General Plan will be spelled out. Language will also be developed to allow consideration of individual City Open Space plans. C) Key sections of the District's enabling legislation pertaining to acquisition will be incorporated into the plan or referenced. (State of California Public Resources Code Section 5500 et seq.) d) CEQA guidelines will be adopted by the District Board prior to adoption of the Acquisition Plan. The plan itself will require Environmental Review (most likely a Negative Declaration) during its adoption process. 2C 3) 4) DEFINITIONS Certain key words and phrases will be defined to allow agreement as to where the District will focus the Acquisition Program. Those definitions include, but are not limited to; a) Agriculture b) Open Space C) Easement(s) d) Fee Title e) Transfer and Purchase of Development Rights INVENTORY AND MAPPING OF PROTECTED LANDS AND SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREAS The Acquisition Plan will identify and prioritize areas within the County where the various categories of open space interests are to be purchased. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to prepare an inventory of the protected lands in the County and to determine what level of protection these lands presently have. This task will include the following: a,) Research and mapping of scenic and conservation easements (including those interests which the Board authorized to be transferred to the District); parcels in Williamson Act and Timber Preserve contracts; Federal, State, County and local parks, preserves and recreation areas; BLM lands; watersheds; DFG managed areas; privately protected lands held by the Sonoma Land Trust, Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, and similar organizations; and other protected lands. This information will be delineated on 500' scale lot line /topography base maps, with respective ownership and APNs noted. These will be used by staff as working_ maps for in -house and field purposes. Protected lands also will be shown on the nine County General Plan Open Space maps (various scales) which may be used for discussion of specific properties at Advisory Committee meetings, etc. b) Classification of the above lands according to the present level of open space protection (e.g. public or quasi - public ownership, easements in perpetuity, dedicated lands, etc.). -2- 5) GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF FOCUS FOR THE ACQUISITION PLAN - RESOURCES MAP With an estimated $300,000,000 (in today's dollars) available to acquire agricultural and other open space lands over the next 19 1/2 years, it is crucial to focus on key areas in the County. Although 80% of the County's 1,020,000 acres are designated as agricultural or resource land in the General Plan, the District can not possibly protect them all. With this in mind, the focus will be to inventory and map significant natural resource areas and lands of key agricultural significance which need protection. It will also contain, but not be limited to significant open space elements in City general plans, vernal pool areas and other crucial resource areas such as along the Russian River and elsewhere in the County. These resource and agricultural areas will be mapped together with existing protected lands to form the Resources Map. 6) FOCUS OF PRIORITY ACQUISITION - ACQUISITION PRIORITY MAP An Acquisition Priority Map will be prepared at the same scale as the Resources Map which will show a ranking of lands in the resource map from most crucial to least crucial. This could take the form of an A, B, or C designation or could also include ranking based on the number of resource or plan elements a property covers. Written criteria will accompany the map to justify the areas of focus. These criteria will show that lands in the community separators and /or under the most pressure to be lost to urban encroachment as being the highest priority. Targeting of parcels in these areas will commence immediately and parcels may be acquired under the guidance of the Interim Acquisition Plan before the adoption of the Final Plan. The Checklist and Expression of Interest element from the Interim Plan will be used (perhaps in modified form) in the Final Plan. Staff will actively pursue the preservation of lands in the highest priority areas. Acquisitions will most likely occur however, in a random basis over all areas of priority due to the varied willingness of sellers, market conditions and the complexity of determining fair land and easement values. The Acquisition Priority Map will be available for public distribution. -3- i) 8) PUBLIC INPUT AND OUTREACH Public input to the plan, including a request for 'Swish lists" of specific parcels to be protected, will commence immediately. In addition, the public outreach process will include the following: a) Hold several workshops around County to comment on the Acquisition Plan early in the planning process. b) Notice the media and all pertinent agencies or organizations from the beginning of planning process and for any upcoming public workshops. C) Develop a simple one page news sheet in the next month explaining what the District is doing and the nature of the Acquisition Plan. d) Staff, committee members and Board will actively solicit input on properties and explain the proposed plan at meetings or speaking engagements to key interested groups and organizations. e) Develop more formalized public information pamphlet, landowner handbook on acquisition and District logo at a later date. f) Adopt the plan through a formal public hearing process by Board of Directors. FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION A funding section will be included in the Acquisition Plan which will include the following elements: a) Utilize 95% of District Sales Tax funding to finance District land Acquisition Program. Develop policy to this effect. Assure that adequate contingency funding is included in the 95% to allow for urgency or special acquisitions. b) Maximize the joint acquisition of properties with key agencies where possible. (ie., Cities, County Parks, State Parks, Water Districts, School Districts etc.) C) Utilize non- profits, land trusts and foundations to aid the District's Acquisition Program where possible (ie., Sonoma Land Trust, Sonoma Foundation, T.P.L., Save the Redwoods, M.A.L.T., Nature Conservancy, San Francisco Foundation, etc.) -4- d) Actively pursue grants and gifts of land to help augment the District's program. e) Consider creative real estate methods to stretch the financing of purchases (ie., Life Estates, Term Payments, Defeasible Fee etc.) f) Encourage the cities to create their own separate Open Space funding program which could help fund joint purchases with the District as referenced in 9b above. g) Work with regulatory or permitting agencies (ie., Planning Departments, Fish and Game, LAFCO) to strengthen policies, development dedications etc., which directly complement the District's Acquisition Program. 9) STEWARDSHIP Before finalization of the Acquisition Plan and before acquiring land, the drafting of policies and a program for the management of District land should commence. Elements such as the following should be included in this plan and be referenced in the Acquisition Plan; a) Due to the proposed limits on District funding for operating expenditures, maximize the assistance of existing park or other pertinent agency staffs to manage District land. b) Organize and utilize a group of landowner peers or volunteers to help manage easements. ACQUISPLAN -5- 69�N 6,e� u V-5 U 1 ON ��nG r'drNj - -rl MFG L-5- ® / aul p Nl!/ rem I NNNkXN , POA 'go/r// VZ! §4 NX�. 11 kk*A MIMI I' Nl!/ Who sits on the Open Space Advisory Commit- tee and what are its responsibilities? The 17- member advisory committee, appointed by the District Board of Directors, is comprised of representatives from various interest groups and the cities. Responsibilities of the committee include advising the District Board and staff on policy matters and making recommendations for proposed land and easement acquisitions. Committee members may also assist to educate the public about the District's purpose and functions. Can the land or easements given or sold to the District be sold or traded by the District in the future? No. Land or easements which have been acquired and dedicated as open space by the District cannot be sold or traded without a majority consent by the voters of Sonoma County or a concurrent resolution by the State legislature. Will public access be allowed on lands acquired by the District? On lands where a conservation easement has been given or sold to the District, public access will not be allowed unless the property owner willingly authorizes it in writing at the time of the transaction. However, public access may be granted on lands purchased in fee by the District where considered appropriate. What methods will the District use to manage property? The District will develop policies and proce- dures for proper management of its lands. In order to retain minimum operating expendi- tures, the District may contract with existing park or other appropriate agency staffs for land management. The District may also organize a group of landowners and volunteers to monitor and manage easements. How will the public become informed of the District's activities? Meetings of the District, Open Space Authority and Advisory Committee occur regularly and are open to the public. The District will develop a brochure and periodic newsletters to inform the public of District programs. Public aware- ness will be accomplished through countywide workshops and presentations before schools and various interest groups and organizations. The public is encouraged to contact the District office for information pertaining to current activities. To obtain more information or to become involved with the District's activities, contact: SCAPOSD 2300 County Center Drive, Suite 157B Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (707) 527 -3126 David Wm. Hansen, General Manager J"O��SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SONOMA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT How was the District formed? How does the District obtain money for land acquisition and management? In November 1990, Sonoma County voters approved Measures A and C, which were placed on the ballot for open space and agricul- tural land preservation in the County. The passage of Measure A established the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, while Measure C provided the financing for acquisition of open space and agricultural lands through a 1/4 percent transaction and use (sales) tax over a 20 -year period. For example, for every 100 dollars of taxable purchases made in the County, 25 cents is collected to preserve its rural character. In addition to the sales tax, the District may finance land acquisition and management through gifts, grants, trusts, and other sources of revenue authorized by law. What are the boundaries of the District? The boundaries of the District are the same as those of Sonoma County. How is the District governed? The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors serves as the District Board of Directors. As such, the District is considered a dependent district of the County. What is the Open Space Authority and what is its relationship to the District? The 5 -member Open Space Authority was created in accordance with state legislation (Farr bill) to finance the acquisition of interests in open space and agricultural lands through the 1/4 percent sales tax. With the passage of Measures A and C, the Open Space Authority is responsible for collecting the sales tax revenues and has entered into an agreement with the District for the use of those funds pursuant to the Authority's expenditure plan. The expendi- ture plan is based on the County's Open Space Element and identifies designated open space areas such as community separators, scenic landscape units and sensitive biotic areas, as well as other open space projects within the cities. Prior to acquisition of interests in agricultural lands and open space, the District is required to adopt an Acquisition Plan. This plan shall be consistent with the expenditure plan and with relevant general plans and shall identify areas within the County where the District will purchase properties. How will the District secure interests in open space and agricultural lands? The District will acquire interests in real property primarily through the purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers. Other methods by which the District may acquire land include purchase of fee, contribu- tions of land, life estates, and transfer of development rights programs. What is a Conservation Easement? A conservation easement is a legal covenant that imposes restrictions over the type and amount of development on a property. The precise restrictions applied to the property included in the conservation easement are mutually agreed upon by the landowner and the District. When a conservation easement is acquired by the District either through purchase or donation, the development rights of the property are pur- chased or offered, while the underlying fee title remains with the landowner. Conservation easements run with the land in perpetuity, and therefore remain in effect even though property ownership may change. How does the Sonoma County General Plan relate to the District's purpose? The Open Space Element of the General Plan establishes policies and programs to preserve the scenic and natural resources of the County. The Land Use, Agricultural Resources and Resource Conservation Elements further include policies to protect agricultural lands and other sensitive areas. The preservation of agricultural land and open space will focus on areas of the County which are designated in the General Plan Open Space Element. Open space designations are depicted on nine maps adopted as part of the General Plan and include community separators, scenic landscape units, scenic corridors, critical habitat areas, and riparian corridors. Can the District force a landowner to sell an easement or other interest on his /her property? No. Acquisitions to preserve agricultural land and open space will involve only willing sellers. The District is prohibited from exercising the power of eminent domain. 1 What areas of the County will the District seek to protect? Acquisitions will generally occur on those lands designated in the Sonoma County General Plan Open Space Element and identified in the District's Acquisition Plan. The Acquisition Plan will be developed in two phases, each adopted by the District Board of Directors. The Interim Acquisition Plan, approved in October 1991, provides a mechanism for responding to special property offers which may come before the District prior to adoption of the Final Acquisition Plan. Special projects include, but are not limited to, properties immediately threatened by development and those where the price is favorable. The Final Acquisition Plan will identify and prioritize areas within the County where interests in open space and agricultural lands will be purchased. The District will hold a series of workshops throughout the County to solicit public input into this Plan. The Final Acquisition Plan will include an inventory of existing protected lands in the County and classification of those lands accord- ing to the present levels of open space protec- tion. An Acquisition Priority Map will rank significant natural resource areas and agricul- tural lands. Prioritization of crucial properties will be based on criteria such as general plan open space designations and critical agricultural and resource characteristics. The District will actively pursue preservation of lands delineated in the highest priority areas. However, acquisi- tions likely will occur throughout all priority areas due to willingness of sellers, market conditions and the complexity of determining fair land and easement values. Z16#7-11 t 6,47-10SCOff 97v NOVEMBER 15, 1991 CAL -TAX NEWS 5� 3 Research Brief Local Public Finance A Look at Benefit Assessments Introduction If many Californians were to sit down with their property tax bills, they might find that they are paying for more than the value of their homes. Tacked onto their bills are assessments for benefits, an area of growing concern and controversy. Coming under increasing scrutiny, for example, are efforts by several school districts to levy benefit assessments under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972. Also, the City of Orland has been sued by taxpayers over an assessment for park maintenance. Assessment opponents complain that property 20 miles out of town is being charged as much as land ad- jacent to the park. Their suit claims that the assessment is not apportioned by benefit and is actually a special tax in disguise. If the levy were a special tax, it would be subject to two-thirds voter approval. In response to these concerns, on Oc- tober 30, the Senate Committee on Local Government heard arguments and com- ments on the use of this and other assess- ment laws. This research brief, using in- formation supplied by the Senate commit- tee, is second in a series on local public finance. This is a brief overview of how benefit assessments are implemented and the laws that authorize their use. What is an Assessment? A benefit assessment, also called a special assessment, is a charge levied on real property that benefits directly from some public project or service. The charge is used to finance all or part of the costs of the improvement. Often, benefit assessments are used to finance the building or installation of public facilities, such as sewers, flood con- trol projects, streets, and street lighting. Some specific services, such as park or street light maintenance and fire protec- tion, have been authorized for benefit assessment financing. Benefit assessments are collected with property taxes, and appear on the same bill as the property tax. The amount charged is usually not based on the value of the property, but is either a fixed per - parcel levy or a scheduled levy that varies either with location or type of property. The Concept of Benefit Benefit assessments are based upon the premise that those who receive a special benefit from a public improvement should contribute to the payment of its costs. However, the amount of assess- ment is theoretically not to be determined by the costs of the improvement, but by the amount of benefit received by affected individuals. Those who receive greater benefits should pay more than those who receive less benefit. Because the assess- ment is to be levied on the amount of benefit received, it is not considered a tax. The concept of special benefit has been defined by the courts. For a benefit assessment to be legal, it must provide a direct or special benefit to the property above and beyond the general benefits received throughout the area. General benefits should be paid for by taxes. Benefit is defined by local officials. However, the courts will invalidate assessments that do not clearly establish benefit to the property assessed. One court stated, "It is clear that only a `special benefit' to the property will justify an assessment, not merely 'general benefit' inuring to the public as a whole. When a special benefit exists, the formula on which the assessments are made must be based on the benefit receiv- ed." (Harrison v. San Mateo County). Are Votes Required? Most benefit assessments do not re- quire voter approval. Rather, citizen in- put consists of an opportunity to protest the assessment, usually at a public hear- ing. If a "majority protest" exists, the proposed assessment is often abandoned, as required by law in most cases. However, some assessment laws allow local officials to override the majority pro- test with a 4/5 vote of the governing body (city council, county board of supervisors, etc.). Some acts require a vote when a cer- tain level of protest is registered. Majority protest is often defined as a majority of property owners, but that is not always the case. Some assessment acts measure majority by the amount of land owned, some measure by the amount of assessed valuation owned by each protester. Local officials sometimes place benefit assessment proposals on local ballots. These are occasionally advisory measures or efforts by elected officials to allow citizen input even though it is not re- quired. One assessment law, the 1982 act (see page 4), requires voter approval. Recent History The passage of Proposition 13 elevated the importance of benefit assessments. Local governments began to use benefit assessments to replace lost property tax revenue, and some controversy ensued. However, the courts determined that assessments which finance improvements that directly benefit individual pieces of property were not special taxes and were not limited by Proposition 13. Cal -Tax research has shown that benefit assessments levied by cities skyrocketed after Proposition 13. By 1982 -83, these assessments had nearly doubled to $54 million in annual collec- tions. Although benefit assessments are a small portion of local revenues, their rapid growth has been a cause for concern. The latest figures available show city benefit assessments providing $152 million in revenues in 1989 -90. Counties received about $2 million, and special districts received $214 million in benefit assessments and parcel taxes combined (the available figures are not separated for special districts). NOVEMBER 15, 1991 California Assessment Acts CAL -TAX NEWS Following is a list of all benefit assessment acts that are currently in force. Various local statutes modify the way that some of these assessments are implemented. • The Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Government Code §38000 et seq.). The 1909 Act lets cities pay for public park, urban open -space land, playground, and library facilities. Cities which use the 1909 Act can condemn land for improvements. • The Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code §5000 et seq.), The 1911 Act lets cities and counties fund the construction of transportation systems, street paving, parks, sewers, drainage systems, fire protection, flood control, water systems, and `other necessary improvements." Officials must complete the improvements before residents can be assessed for their costs. Agencies which use the 1911 Act can issue bonds under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. • The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code §10000 et seq.). The 1913 Act lets cities, coun- ties, and special districts fund everything included in the 1911 Act plus power and public transit facilities. Unlike the 1911 Act, assessments can be levied before construction begins. Like the 1911 Act, the 1913 Act allows an agency to use bonds from the 1915 Act. • The Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code §8500 et seq.). The 1915 Act does not authorize assessments. Instead, it lets cities, counties, and "public" districts which use other assessment acts to issue assessment bonds and bond anticipation notes. • The Street Lighting Act of 1919 (Streets and Highways Code §18000 et seq.). The 1919 Act lets cities fund the maintenance and operation of street lighting. Each assessment must be evaluated and reapplied annually after yearly public hearings. A 4/5 vote of the legislative body may override a majority protest. o Municipal Lighting Maintenance District Act of 1927 (Streets and Highways Code §18600 et seq.). The 1927 Act lets cities charge assessments to maintain and operate (but not install) street lights. Each ad valorem -based levy must be reassessed every year. A 4/5 vote of the legislative body may override a majority protest. Because of its provision for ad valorem assessments, this act is invalidated by Proposition 13. • The Street Lighting Act of 1931 (Streets and Highways C..nrla 91f.Mn al- cant rM. 10Ql A.1 1,.4,. ,'�:^_ L assessments to maintain and operate (but not install) street lights. Each levy must be reassessed each year. A 4/5 vote of the legislative body may override a majority protest. • The Tree Planting Act of 1931 (Streets and Highways Code §22000 et seq.). The 1931 Act lets cities levy frontage -based assessments to plant and maintain trees along city streets. The city parks department must complete the work. • The Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 (Streets and Highways Code §35100 et seq.). The 1943 Act lets cities and counties purchase land for parking structures, construct and maintain parking lots, and pay for related planning. • The Parking District Law of 1951 (Streets and Highways Code §35100 et seq.). The 1951 Act lets cities purchase land for parking structures, construct and maintain parking lots, and pay for related salaries. • The Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Streets and Highways Code §11000 et seq.). The 1960 Act lets cities and counties establish pedestrian malls. Under the Act, local officials can take land by eminent domain. • The Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code §22500 A seq.). The 1972 Act lets cities, counties, and special districts levy assessments for land purchase and the construction, operation, and maintenance of parks, landscaping, and lighting. A 4/5 vote of the legislative body could override a majority protest. e The Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government Code §54703 et seq.). The 1982 Act lets cities, counties, and special districts finance a variety of improvements. The 1982 Act re- quires majority voter approval if the proposed assessment area has 12 or more registered voters,. If less than 12, the owners of at least 60% of the land in the assessment area must give written consent to the assessment. • The Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985 (Government Code §53370 et seq.). This law lets cities and counties fund the renovation and repair (but not the maintenance) of an existing structure. s The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets and Highways Code §36500 et seq.). The 1989 Act lets cities and counties fund parking facilities, public decora- tions, and the promotion of public events and business activities. • Fire Suppression Assessments (Government Code §50078 et seq.). Cities, counties, special districts, and county service areas can charge assessments to purchase and maintain fire fighting equipment and to pay related salaries. Unlike other assessment acts, local officials do not form assessment "districts" to use fire suppression assessments. Protests over 5% may trigger an election. • The Integrated Financing District Act (Government Code §53175 et seq.). Local agencies can use this Act to place con- tingent liens on vacant land to be developed at a later date so that the vacant land can pay for improvements to the land when development begins. City Benefit Assessments Growth Since Proposition 13 a Note: Revenues reported by Los Angeles to the State Controller in 1988-89 undercounted benefit assessments by about $30 million, skewing the report. Source : State Controller's Office