Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1990 BAKERSFIELD Patricia Smith, Chair Conni Brunni ~ Kevin McDermott~-~ Staff: John~~ INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE PREMEETING Thursday, November 1, lggO 11:30 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room AGENDA 1. Booking Fees Update (Weddell) 2. Ambulance Ordinance Update (Schuett/Drew) 3. Congestion Management/Kern COG (Heinrichs) 4. Citywide Park Districk (Hawley) 5. Plan for Growth Project (Heinrichs) 6. California Clean Air Act (Abbott) 7. Set Next Meeting AGENDA CITY/COUNTY IGRC MEETING Thursday, November 1 -- NOON Public Services Building Resource Management Agency Conference Room -- 3rd Floor I. Booking Fees Update 0Neddell) II. Ambulance Ordinance Update (Schuett/Drew) III. Congestion Management/KernCOG Update (Heinrichs) IV. Metropolitan Park District Update (Hawley) V. Plan for Growth Project (Heinrichs) VI. California Clean Air Act (Abbott) VII. Set Next Meeting JH:dr~igrc.agd ~-~? ~. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ MEMORANDUM ~~~-~~J~'~/ Fred A. Dr~ Ro~rt ~rnes, M~d~( ~1 D~r~ for October BO, 1990 TO: All Kern County City Managers FROM: Fred Drew, Director SUBJECT: Request for Comments on the Proposed Kern County Ambulance Ordinance On this date the Board of Supervisors heard public comments on the proposed Kern County ambulance ordinance during the Board's normal agenda.- There were several requests by city representatives to postpone the adoption of the ordinance in order to provide more time for dialogue between the cities and Kern County. The Board of Supervisors took action to delay the adoption of the ordinance and rescheduled the item for 10 a.m., Tuesday, November 13, 1990. Previously, in an October 11, 1990 letter I sent you a copy of the proposed ambulance ordinance for your review and comment. The purpose of this memorandum is to again request comments, on specific changes you deem appropriate in the ordinance, ideas or suggestions on how the issue of local control might be resolved or mitigated within the framework of the concept of a county-wide EMS system, or any other comments that would foster the continuation of the ordinance so that the EMS Department may get on with the business of managing the County EMS system- Because of the short time involved, and because of a previous commitment that will take me away from Bakersfield from November 7-9, I am faxing this memorandum to you. I will make myself available upon your request for any meeting or coordination, either individually or collectively (with one or more city representatives) as you desire. Any written comments to the Department will be provided to the Board of Supervisors. Please .let me know tf you desire to meet on this subject. Thank you. FAD:srs/em~ocom.90 cc: Board of Supervisors County Counsel , Gounty Adminisu'ative Office ~..~.z-.~'~ GEARY TAYLOR scon- JONES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER g,reclor JOEL HEINRICH$ MARY WEE)DELL Director o~ Poiicy Ana;vs~s Ass~stam County Administrative Officer & lntergo~ernmen:a~ ROBERT SEVERS Empio~ee Re;~ahons COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE November 6, 1990 Board of Supervisors Kern County Civic center 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING -- TO PLAN FOR GROWTH PROJECT UPDATE On March 6, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved the "To Plan For Growth" research project. The project proposed a step-by-step evaluation of the impact of growth on County services. Committee of the Whole meetings were held on April 30, June 4, and July 9 wherein various aspects of the impacts of growth were examined. The July 9 presentation proposed a series of recommendations to facilitate the provision of adequate County services as the County population and service demands increase. These recommendations are summarized as follows: 1. In consultation with cities, implement countywide impact fees for the construction/improvement of regional roads as warranted by new development. .f. In consultation with cities, implement countywide impact fees for the construction of required govemmental facilities as warranted by new development. 3. In consultation with cities and park and recreation districts, implement a countywide Park/Recreation/Lib.rary/Mu. sgum County Service Area (CSA). ~ .c~, ent a lan for unvroved ,.,olice and 4. In consultation with cities, im~em p ' v ~, ' fire services. Options to be considered include: a) Special tax b) Public Protection CSA c) Separate Police & Fire Assessments This update is intended to: 1) advise the Board of Supendsors as to the progress made toward developing implementation proposals for these recommendations, 2) receive feedback from the Board and other meeting participants regarding those conceptual plans completed to date, and 3) revise 'the project implementation timeline. 1415 Truxtun Avenue, Room #704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 86i 2 Board of Supervisors November 6, 1990 Page 2 This repor~ has been reviewed by ff~e project Technical AdViSory Committee, which is in general agreement with its content. Mm Ass rant County Administrative Officer MW:JH:dr\update.rpt cc: Technical Advisory Committee Ail Depatu~tent Heads Project Mailing List TO PLAN FOR GROWTH PROJECT FALL- 1990 UPDATE On March 6, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved the "To Plan For Growth" research project. The project proposed a step-by-step evaluation of the impact of growth on County services. Committee of the Whole meetings were held on April 30, June 4, and July 9 wherein various aspects of the impacts of growth were examined. The basic conclusion of this evaluation was that Kern County will be unable to maintain existing service levels. The basic alternative courses of action that will be available to the Board of Supervisors, are therefore: · reduce service levels · reduce the relative cost per unit of service provided · increase revenues The Board of Supervisors rejected reducing services and endorsed in concept a series of recommendations which are intended to increase the efficiency of county service delivery and/or increase funds available for desired services. The four basic reeonunendations are: 1. In consultation with cities, implement countywide impact fees for the construction/improvement of regional roads as warranted by new development. 2. In consultation with cities, implement countywide impact fees for the construction of required governmental facilities as warranted by new development. 3. In consultation with cities and park and recreation districts, implement a countywide Park/Recreation/Library/Museum CSA. 4. In consultation with cities, implement a plan for improved police and fire services. Options to be considered include: a) Special tax b) Public Protection CSA c) Separate Police & Fire Assessments The basis of these recommendations is more fully described in the To Plan For Growth Project - Presentation #3 (Appendix A). The balance of this report will, for each recommendation, sUmmarize: 1) the conceptual plan for implementation (ff complete), 2) actions remaining to be undertaken prior to formal Board action or proposed implementation plan, and 3) revised timeline for implementation. Detailed descriptions of each proposed implementation action are provided in the appendices. Recommendation #1 - Regional Roads Conceptual Plan OMNI-MEANS, Ltd., in association with Icard, Merrill, Culli.% Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, and Dr. James Nicholas have been retained by the.Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) to develop a transportation development fee for the metropolitan Bakersfield area. The purpose of the transportation development fee is to provide a fair and equitable mechanism for the collection of fees from new development to offset the costs of providing transportation facilities necessary to support the traffic and public transit ridership generated by new development. The study area covers the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area. The development of a transportation development fee is consistent with policies adopted as a pan of the Circulation Element of the 2010 General Plan. A recommended fee implementation plan is not yet available. Based on data 'supplied by the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, and Golden Empire Transit District, the consultants will assess existing and projected deficiencies, apply the fee methodology, and produce a proposed impact fee schedule for transportation facilities in Metropolitan Bakersfield. The proposal should be completed by December 31, 1990. It should be noted that any impact fee will be based on the "net cost" of providing identified facilities, exclusive of existing revenues, developer contributed improvements and revenue from a 1/2 cent sales tax, should a transportation tax be approved. The projecfs status is more fully described in the enclosed memorandum to The Metro Transportation Committee dated October 19, 1990 (Appendix B). Remaining Actions Following completion of the consultanfs work, City and County staff will present the draft plan in community workshops. Following completion of the workshop process, a recommendation will be made to the City Council and Board of Supervisors. Revised Timeline Implementation of impact fees for transportation facilities in Metropolitan Bakersfield should be accomplished by July 1, 1991. Development of a similar fee program for the remainder of Kern County should be referred to the Public Works Department at the same time. The Public Works Department, in conjunction with the Planning and Development Services Department, will adapt the approved methodology to the remainder of Kern County. Recommendation #2 - CourtW Facilities Conceptual Plan A conceptual plan for facility impact fees has not been developed. Further action on this recommendation has been deferred pending development of a more sophisticated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In the interim, an improved fiscal impact analysis process for land use decisions is being developed.. This improved process will allow for more effective use of the CEQA process to identify appropriate County facilities necessitated by new development, pending further action on this recommendation. It should be emphasized that the fiscal impact process alone will not provide a comprehensive response to incremental impacts of growth, but it should at least capture the impact of large developments. Remaining Actions A fairly sophisticated CIP is required to implement this recommendation. The CIP must include facility standards, projected facility deficiencies, and a financing plan for fee supported improvements, as well as correction of any existing deficiencies with non-fee revenues. Revised Timeline The improved fiscal analysis process should be in place by January 1, 1991. The CIP necessary to implement this recommendation, if it is ultimately determined to be appropriate, may be completed by Fall, 1992. It should be noted that this recommendation is the most difficult to implement using in-house resources. Should the Board of Supervisors desire to speed implementation, it will be necessary to budget funds for consulting services. Recommendation #3 - Parks/Library/Museum CSA Conceptual Plan A conceptual plan for a Countywide Park and Recreation County Service Area (CSA) has been developed. Should it be successful, a similar model could be implemented for cultural services. The CSA model appears to be legally inappropriate for library services. Therefore, other alternatives must be explored. The Park and Recreation CSA model is intended to accomplish several goals: (1) improve park and recreation services, (2) maximize local control over use of funds, and (3) facilitate the more efficient delivery of park and recreation services by coordinating the provision of these services among cities, special districts, and the County. The model is based upon creation of a Countywide CSA with a number of zones of benefit reflecting existing cities, special districts, and communities of interest. Each zone would determine if park and recreation improvements are desired and how much the residents within that zone are will~rtg to assess themselves for those improvements. It can be implemented in conjunction with the Quimby Act. Zones not desiring improvements will not be assessed. The model excludes Metropolitan Bakersfield. A joint evaluation by the City of Bakersfield, North Bakersfield Park and Recreation District, and County of gem is underway to evaluate how park and recreation services may be improved in the Metropolitan area. More information regarding the Park and Recreation CSA concept is provided in the enclosed discussion paper (Appendix C). Remaining Actions A series of actions are necessary to form the CSA. Assumin' g conceptual approval is granted at this time, the Administrative Office and Parks and RecreatiOn Department will proceed to schedule a series of community workshops to discuss the proposal.: Following further community discussion, appropriate hearings will be scheduled before the Board of Supervisors. Revised Timeline Community workshops should be completed by January 31, 1991. A report outlining Parks and Recreation CSA formationi actions required will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval by February 28, 199L A Parks and Recreation CSA should be formed by July 1, 1991. Expansion/modification of the process for Museum and Library services will be evaluated in FY 1991/92 with the intention to implement any viable proposals by June 30, 1992. Recommendation #4 - Police/Fire CSA Conceptual Plan The provision of fire protection and law enforcement services have been dealt with separately to date. Further evaluation of law enforcement options is ,on hold pending the assumption of office by the newly elected Sheriff. The implementation of a countywide fire services assessment appears to be the most viable option for fire services. ~ assessment would exclude cities Which provide their own fire protection or contract for fire services. Additionally, cities which do not currently conl~act for services would be given the option of doing so in lieu of participation in the assessment if desired. The assessment would be established to extend three b~sic services: 1) consumct and equip new facilities as neeaed 2) expand staffing of existing and new facilities as needed 3) expand medical training/services as needed. More information regarding the fire services assessment concept is provided in the enclosed discussion paper (Appendix D). Remainin~ Actions Following completion of an assessment proposal and consultation with affected cities, community workshops will be held. A proposal will then be presented to the Board of Supervisors for appropriate hearings and implementation. Revised Timeline Community workshops should be completed by February 28, 1991. A report outlining the fire services assessment implementation actions required will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval by March 31, 1991. The assessment should be placed before the voters in June, 1991 to be effective July 1, 1991, if approved. SUMMARY Clearly, implementation of the To Plan For Growth project recommendations will require considerable additional work by staff and further community dialogue. It is recommended that staff proceed with the conceptual plans outlined above, present specific proposals as completed to interested parties in public workshops, and present these to the Board of Supervisors for implementation. As indicated, the four recommendations listed above will be modified as necessary to respond to the changing environment and ongoing strategic planning efforts. JH:dr\update.rpt Appendix. A ? TO PLAN FOR GROI~rII-I PROJECT PRESENTATION #3 INTRODUCTION Two presentations have been made to the Board of Supervisors regarding existing "grow-ch policy" and the likely impact of legislative/legal requirements on County facilities and services. These presentations can be briefly summarized as follows: Traditional [nfrastntcrure Traditional infrastructure includes water, sewer, storm drainage, roads and public utilities. These services have been traditionally financed w/th some form of user charges or .fees. With the exception of regional roads~, the construction, maintenance and operation of these fac/lities is accomplished in a generally satisfactory manner via existing revenue mechanisms. Non-traditional [nfrastn~cture Non-traditional infrastructure includes parks, libraries, museums, general government, fire, health and criminal justice facilities and services. These facilities and services have traditionally been financed from general purpose revenues. However, as caseloads and under-funded mandates have expanded, it has been. increasingly difficult to fund these services. The prospect for maintaining current service levels, particularly in high growth portions of the County like South Eastern Kern, Tehachapi, Rosedale/Fruirvale, and Frazier Park i~ dim. User fees for a variety of these services have been increased on a case-by-case basis. Sc/tools School districts throughout the County are experiencing significant student population growth. In the high growth areas sited above, projected facility shortages are particularly acute. The primary sources of revenue for school, facilities are development impact fees, State bond proceeds, which are in very shor~ supply, and locally imposed bonds. A number of school districts in Metropolitan Bakersfield have successfully implemented bond elections. The County's ability to respond to school facility needs is very limited. The impact on schools, along with other environmental impacts, may be considered in the development process. However, development cannot be ~required~ as a condition of zoning approval to provide school facilities. ~All County roads other than local, neighborhood streets. 1 Alternatives 7' A number of alternatives have been identified as potential responses to Kern County's rapid growth. These include: Do Nothing (and allow service levels to decline over t/me) Slow Growth (via altered land use policies) · Institute Development Impact Fees · Form Assessment Districts · Form Mello-Roos Distr~cts · Form County Service Areas · Enact a 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for Transportation · Enact General Obligation Bonds · Form a County Redevelopment Agency · Revise Annexation/Incorporation Policies These alternatives are not mutually exclusive. A blend of strategies is necessary to address the range of service deficiencies projected. Further, the reeonunendations below, axe intended to include the actions which are most appropriate at thi~ time and over which the Board has jurisdiction. Additional alternatives may merit pursuit in the future. All of these alternatives will affect Kern County's growth rate in some Way. Whether increased housing costs will slow growth or improved service levels stimulate growth cannot be predicted at this point. However, the issue of optimal growth rates is not addressed by this reporx. It focuses on responding prudently to the County's growth, independent of other actions the County may take to stimulate or retard growth. The policy choices effecting the nature and desirability of growth are left for the general plan process. DISCUSSION Traditional Infrastructure · The construction/improvement of regional roads has been identified as the key element of traditional infi'astructure which cannot be provided within current policies and practices. This type of facility has been traditionally, and effeetively provided via land use requirements and impact fees. Therefore, a eomprehensive transportation impact fee should be developed to fund road improvementS which cannot be accomplished via current mechanisms. These fees must be based on actual impact of new development and should be implemented as soon as practical. It should be noted that enactment of a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, depending on its structure, might reduce the need for impact fees of this type. Should such a tax be enacted, fee schedules would be revised to reflect any impact of the tax revenue. In 'order to simplify development and to ensure coordinated planning within city spheres of influence, joint city-county fee programs should be considered wherever practical. A joint City of Bakersfield - County of Kern supported study of traffic impact fees for Metropolitan Bakersfield is 2 currently being conducted by KernCog. Once the study is complete, it will be possible to implement consistent fees for Metropolitan Bakersfield. Once Metropolitan Bakersfield fees are established, County staff should begin development of similar fees Countywide. To the extent possible, these fees should be developed in conjunction with the other cities of the County. RECOMMENDATION #1: Inconsultation with cities, implement Coun.tvwide impact fees for the construction~improvement of regional roads as warranted by new development. Non-traditional [nfrastrttcmre Non-traditional infrastructure and services have not been traditionally supported with user fees. However, without changes in current policy and practice, current service levels will not keep pace with the County's population growth. There is a large range of County services which could be increasingly shifted from the general property tax base to user fees. Of course, both the practical problems of determining the types of service which lend themselves to user fees and the philosophical question as. to the types of services meriting user fees must be resolved. To the extent that some services are shifted to user fees, furttre growth in general property taxes will be available to support expanded service levels for functions which cannot, or should not, be supported by user fees. The primary issue, therefore, is not whether it is possible to provide the services desired by the public and necessitated by rapid population growth via increased user fees. Rather, the key question is: If services levels are to be maintained or improved, which sen-ices should be provided by increased user charges? The following non-traditional services/facilities are most appropriately financed by increased user charges: GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES The construction of local government facilities has been historically financed by general revenues, general obligation bonds, benefit assessment districts and/or tax overrides. The type of financing method used varied depending on the cost of and type of facility, strength of the .tax base, and other factors. Kern County's strong property tax base allowed the County to consu'uct facilities out of general revenues. Kern County's financial world has changed. The Board of Supervisors no longer sets the tax rate to meet revenue requirements. State mandates have exploded. Unprecedented growth is occurring. In th~ environment, it is appropriate to shift the cost of new facility construction to impact fees in order to ensure new residents, receive levels of se.,~'ices consistent with those provided in ex/sang, developed areas. Impact fees for facility construction can only be imposed on new development based on clearly 'defined standards. Specifically, new development cannot be required to provide a higher level of service than that provided to exi~ang residents. Thus, a Capital Improvement Program will be 3 required which: 1) sets facility standards, 2) provides a formula for assessing new development for construction of new facilities as required, 3) identifies current deficiencies which must be remediated with general purpose funds (elimination of deficiencies can be phased Over the planning timeframe, which is typically twenty years). It is an oppomme time to begin this process. With the completion Of the COP projects, and planned Court projects, Kern County will have relatively few facility deficiencies. Therefore, it will be a good time to set minimum facility standards and begin requiring all new development to contribute toward future facility requirements. As in the case of regional roads, any development impact fee program for county facilities should be coordinated with the cities. Some county facilities benefit the residents of incorporated communities, others do not. A jointly administered program, where possible, provides the best oppommity for good, regional planning and mimmization of confusion in the development community. It should also be noted that Mello-Roos Districts provide an alternative means of providing the facilities required by new development. To the extent that new development provicles the required facilities via an alternate method, impact fees for that development should be reduced or eliminated. RECOMMENDATION #2: [n consultation with cities, implement Countywide impact fees'for the constntction of required governmental facilities as warranted by new development. PARK/LIBRARY/MUSEUM SERVICES The construction of new facilities does not solve the County's fiscal dilemma if funds are not available to maintain and operate the facilities. Therefore, a means must be found to fund service levels consistent with public desires. Over the last several years, County funds have been increasingly shifted from discretionary services to mandated services. Thus, even though overall revenues have increased significantly, the public is faced with lower levels of park, library and museum services. Given the County's budget structure, and the requirements of law, this trend will not be reversed without changes in current policy and practice. It is appropriate to shift the park/library/museum services out of.the general budget. These are discretionary services which the County is not required to provide. Thus, to the extent that the public desires improved services in these areas, user ekarges can be imposed to provide these services. The most appropriate vehicle to accomplish this shift' appears to be a County-wide County Service Area (CSA) for Park, Recreation, Library and Museum purposes. Current general purpose expenditures for these services could be dedicated to the CSA as a base level of support. However, all expansions in service would be financed via assessments for that purpose. 4 There are two primary advantages to this approach: 1. CSA's are very flexible. Improvements in regional facilities, which benefit all County residents, could be paid for by all residents equally. However, if local communities desire new facilities or higher levels of service, zones of benefit may be created so that only those residents benefiting from the new facility/ser¢ice pay for it. Additionally, cities can be included in CSAs. 2. The shift of discretionary services to a CSA funding base (plus current general fund contributions to these services) will allow any future growth in general funds to be spent on mandated services. There are two particular aspects of this approach which will require further evaluation before implementation. First, a means to integrate CSA assessments and Quimby Act parkland dedication requirements will be required. Secondly, further legal evaluation of the extent to which a CSA can be used to fund extended library and museum sezvices will be required. In addition to this action, the County should aggressively pursue its current policy of transferring local parks to cities and/or special dismicts whenever possible. In fact, the transfer of these facilities may be assisted by the formation of a CSA to f'u.nd extended services, by special dismcr or cities, at those facilities. RECOMMENDATION #3: In consultation with cities and park and recreation districts, implement a County-wide Park/Recreation/Library/Museum CSA. POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES Police (SherifFs Operations) and Fire Services are two more County functions that have suffered during recent years. The services are mandated, but the level of service is set by the Board ~-ia budget process. Due to compel~.ng demands for limited resources, it has been impossible ro pro~ade the level of service desired by the public. To the extent that capital projects and c~iscretionary recreation and education services are sh~ed to impact and user fees, additional general fund resources w~ be made avaJJable for these services. However, it is reasonable to exl~ect demands for improved police and fire services, pa~c~rly m high growth areas, above and beyond the County's fiscal capacity to respond. There are a variety of potellfia! approaches to improved police and ~re protection. These i~c~.ude: imposition of a spe~ tax (2/3 vote required), formation of a Public Protection CSA for both and F~re services, or formation of separate CSA's or Assessment Dist~cts for police and ~re. The County Service A~ea law clearly enumerates extended pol~ce and fire services as eligible for inclusion in CSA's. Additionally, Special Fke Suppression Assessments are also allowed. levels of support for these services should be maintained whichever mechanism is u~ed. However. as expanded services are desired, Countywide assessments or zones of benefit could be estab~hed to finance new operating costs as required. 5 t~COMM~NDATION #4: In consultation with cities, implement plan for improved police and fire services. Options to be considered include: a) Special tax b) Public Protection CSA c) Separate Police and Fire Service Assessments : SUMMARY Based on a comprehensive evaluation of current development policy and the fizcal txends affecting Kern County, the following recommendations axe made: 1. In consultation with cities, implement Countywide impact fees for the construction/improvement of regional roads as warranted by new development. 2. In consultation with cities, implement Countywide impact fees for the conStruction of required govenunental facilities as warranted by new development. 3. In conSultation with cities and park and recreation cListricts, implement a Countywide Park/Recreation/Library/Museum CSA. 4. In conSultation with cities, implement a plan for improved police and fire services. OptionS to be conSidered include: a) Special tax b) PubLic Protection CSA c) Separate Police & Fire Assessments Recommendation #1 will not impact the County's ability to finance other County services, since absent an impact fee, regional roads will simply not be improved. Reconunendation #2 will potentially free-up some general purpose revenues to fund other services. However, capital projects funded with general purpose revenues have been severely reduced in recent yeas so the overall impact on County services will be sm~ll. Both impact fee recommendationS are generally conSistent with past practice and current policy. New development is reqttized by current General Plan policies to pay the cost of the pUbLic fac~ties required as a result of that development and impact fees are a fair, generally accepted means of accomplishing that goal. The result will be improved public facilities for all Kern County residents. County Service Areas axe currently used to fund sewage, drainage, street lighting, fire hydrants street sweeping and school crossing guards. Recommendations #3 and #4 are a departure from current policy and practice ia that CSAs are proposed to finance the expansion of basic County services. 6 As mentioned earlier, there are a range of other County services which could be provided via CSA's. However, the services recommended above appear to be the most appropriate at this fi_me. They are services that the public often desires at a greater level that the County budget will allow. The recommended approach provides an option for higher service levels- either Countywide or in local areas. To the extent that improved services in these areas are funded by user fees, the incremental growth in general purpose funds can be allocated to the vast array of mandated programs the County is required to perform with limited general purpose revenues. Implementation of a redevelopment agency or rev/sed annexation/incorporation policies are not recommended at th/s time. A county redevelopment agency may be appropriate for construction of needed infrastructure in eligible communities, k will be further evaluated and a recommendation presented to the Roard at a later date. As noted above, implementation of the enumerated recommendations will be ciiscussed with the cities and effected specie cLiscriccs. As a pan of chose ctiscussions, current annexation policies and development fee structures will be cLiscussed. These discussions may result in further recommendations regarding city-county services, annexation policies, etc. NEXT STEP Should the Board of Supervisors approve implementation of the recommendations contained within this report, a more specific implementation plan will be developed. Once specific proposals are developed, the draft implementation plan will be discussed with cities, special districts, and the public. Following review and modification, as necessary, it will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for adoption this Fall Full implementation of all of the recommendations contained within this report could be accomplished by the end of FY 1990/91. JH:ch'\d omni e j :i J~J'~, .... -~ E ~ G ~ N E E R S P L A N ~ E ~ s KERN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Members of ~e Me~o Tr~po~afio~ Committee: Appead~z B At the request of Mr. Ron Bmmmett, I have prepared this memorandum to answer a few questions regarding the transportation impact fee study for the Metro area. Ron and Mr. Lloyd Norton have recently asked the following questions: 1) What will the product be and what will we have to do after completion of the study to adopt a fee program? The final product will be a report which documents the entire transportation fee development. It will include necessary fee schedules, by land use, necessary to pay for future roadway and transit needs. An ordinance prepared by the City Attorney or County Counsel and adopted by the appropriate governing body according to local procedures should implement the impact fee program. 2) What projects are being included? The transportation fee is being prepared to fund improvements which have been identified as necessary to support future development as envisioned by the recently adopted Metro Plan and capital needs identified by GET. The roadway improvements and their limits, as I have identified them, are attached. This table has been extracted from Working Paper #2, currently being prepared. Working Paper #2 is being prepared based on this list of identified needs, ff thi.~ list is incomplete or includes projects which should not be included, please let me know as soon as possible. To meet the rational nexus test, these are the improvements which have been identified as necessary to accommodate future growth to 2010. As the General Plan process begins to incorporate future development beyond 2010,' the fee program can be amended to include other identified roadway needs. The fee program will include full documentation of the methodological approach to development of the fee, so that the prggram can be changed to include more projects, less projects, exclude transit projects, or transfer it to other areas of the County. I would like to point out that, unless there is substantial identified funding, the fcc which will result from this project list, in my opinion, will either be too small to fund all of the needs or will be too large to be viable. I note this bemuse of the extra-ordinary cost associated with just the "Crosstown Freeway", where I am using a cost of $469,000,000 for a three mile freeway, ff the shortfalls do prove to be excessive, direction that the Metro Transportation Committee could .give may include: a) partial funding of some or all improvements. b) partial or total exclusion of improvements to State Routes. c) partial or total exclusion of some improvements. 3) What more information do you need from us? I believe that. I will need only three more pieces of information: revenues, travel data and perhaps land use data. The revenue and travel data was requested by me in April, and therefore, I would assume that it is near completion. SACRAMENTO ~.N~ ,~,, ~ ::r, ~,v~'.ie. ~ 95661 q'e-~. ';evaaa ~951~ ,','c~ut 'C:~K, ~ g4596 LCS ,~aS. ',evac3 ~;102 ,;'~) 782-8~8/9694~8 ,. ,=22'. 325-1223 {4t5', 035-2230 :AX :g',; 782-8~9 ;:, "702', 525-127~ ray ,'4!5', ;~-2247 Revenues: The fee program is being develop to fund the shortfall between identified needs and identified revenues. Revenue projections are crucial to preparation of Working Paper #3. Project specific funding would be ideal. I would anticipate developing a Table such as this: ROADWAY LIMITS COST IDENTIFIED FUNDIN6 SHORTFALl North/South Frwy Metro Boundary to Metro Boundary $ 1,000,000 $ 750.000 $ 250.000 Crosstown Freeway SR 178 to SR 99 $ 4.000,000 0 $4,000,000 Vestside Freeway SR 99 to Renfro Road $ 1,500,000 $1,500,000 0 Taft Hiqhway Stine Road to Union Avenue $ 140,000 $ 20,000 $ 120,000 $ 6.640,000 $2,270,000 $4,370,000 The impact fee program would be designed to fund the identified $4,370,000 shortfall. The revenue information should include all sources that are applicable: special assessment districts, Mello-Roos Districts, Federal funds, Gas Tax receipts, CALTRANS contributions, General Fund revenues, Sale~ Tax revenue, municipal bonds, etc. Also, if there are any outstanding bond issues that are used for capital roadway improvements, I will need to know the amount of the bond issue, the amount used for roadway construction, the term of the bond and the debt per dollar valuation. Travel Data: Average trip length by land use type. This should be available through the modelling conducted by Kern COG. Land Use: The 2010 General 'Plan provides land use projections for 2010, as well as the incremental increase. However, if a fee program is desired which has various districts (ie: City versus County, four quadrants of City or County), I will need to have the land use information dis-aggregated to these districts. 4) When will the study be completed? The contract for the study calls for three working papers, a draft final report and a final report. Working Paper #2 will be complete November 2nd, Working Paper #3 should follow in three weeks and the draft final report three weeks after that. This schedule will should allow completion by December 31, 1990, which is the term of the contract. However, this is a tight schedule and it is dependant upon me receiving the information requested in Question 3, above. I would also like to point out that thi.q schedule could slip if the calculated impact fees are too large to be viable and direction is needed as to how best to reduce the overall improvement costs. I hope that these responses have answered your questions. I will be available during your meeting on Friday to answer any other questions. Also, I would welcome calls from any of you individually over the course of this project. OMNI-MEANS, Ltd Thomas F. Brinkman, P.E. TAB!.~- 7 Fu'ruRE ROADWAY NEEDS TO MAINTAIN LOS C ROADWAY I.IMITS NEED Freeways North/South Frwy Metro Boundary to Metro Boundary Construct four lanes Crosstown Freeway SR 178 to SR 99 Construct four lanes Westside Freeway SR 99 to Renfro Road Construct four lanes SR 178 Fairfax Road to Alfred Harrel Highway Widen to six lanes SR 99 Panama Lane to Ming Widen to six lanes SR 58 SR 99 to Cottonwood Road Widen to six lanes SR 99 Ming to SR 58 Widen to eight lanes Arterials Taft Highway Stine Road to Union Avenue Widen to six lanes Union Avenue to Weedpatch Highway Widen to four lanes Panama Lane Union Avenue to Renfro Road ext. Widen to six lanes Fraser Road Buena Vista Rd to Renfro Road ext. Construct six lanes White Lane Cottonwood Road to Buena Vista Road Widen to six lanes Cottonwood Road to Mt. Vernon ext. Construct to six lanes Mt. Vernon ext. to Morning Drive Widen to six lanes Casa Loma Dr. Union Avenue to Cottonwood Road Widen to four lanes Cottonwood Road to Fairfax Road Construct two lanes Ming Avenue Gosford Road to Old River Road Widen to six lanes Old River Road to Renfro Road ext. Construct six lanes Stockdale Hwy Allen Road to Metro Boundary Widen to four lanes Allen Road to Oak Street Widen to six lanes Rosedale Hwy Enos Lane to Allen Road Widen to four lanes Allen Road to Oak Street Widen to six lanes Hageman Santa Fe Way to Calloway Drive Widen to six lanes Calloway Drive to Mohawk Road ext. Construct six lanes Santa Fe Way Hageman Road to Metro Plan Boundary Widen to four lanes Olive Drive Coffee Road to Roberts Lane Widen to six lanes Seventh Standard Road Coffee Road to Manor Street Widen to four lanes China Grade Loop Airport Drive to Kern Drive Widen to six lanes Extension to Fairfax Road Construct six lanes Alfred Harrell Hwy Lake Ming Road to Kern Canyon Road Widen to four lanes Niles Street William.~ Street to Kern Canyon Road Widen to six lanes Calloway Drive Hageman Road to Brimhall Road Widen to six lanes Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway Construct six lanes Old River Road Stockdale Highway to Panama Lane Widen to six lanes Panama Lane to Taft Highway Widen to four lanes Renfro Road Ming Avenue to Panama Lane Construct two lanes Allen Road Rosedale Highway to Stockdale Highway Widen to six lanes Stockdale Highway to Panama Lane Construct six lanes Worldng Paper #2: Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Development Fee Page 17 Buena Vista Road Panama Lane to Stockdale Highway Widen to six lanes Gosford Road Pacheco Road to Panama Lane Widen to six lanes Ashe Road Stockdale Highway to Harris Road Widen to six lanes Harris Road to Panama Lane Construct six lanes Fmitvale Road Hageman Road to Seventh Standard Widen to six lanes Coffee Road Truxton Avenue to Rosedale Highway Widen to six lanes Downing Avenue to Seventh Standard Widen to six lanes Downing Avenue to Rosedale Highway Construct six lanes Mohawk Road Westside Freeway to Rosedale Highway Widen to six lanes Rosedale Highway to Olive Drive Construct six lanes Westside Freeway.to Truxton Avenue Construct six lanes Oak Street 24th Street to Brundage Lane Widen to six lanes Wible Road Bnmdage Lane to Panama Lane Widen to six lanes South H Street White Lane to Panama Lane Widen to four lanes Union Avenue SR 58 to Taft Highway Widen to six lanes New Stire Road Stockdale Highway to Taft Highway Widen to six lanes Chester Avenue Ming Avenue to Union Avenue Widen to six lanes SR 204 to Seventh Standard Road Widen to six lanes Airport Road SR 204 to Seventh Standard Road Widen to six lanes Manor Street Panorama Drive to Chester Avenue Widen to six lanes Mt. Vernon Ave SR 58 to Panorama Drive Widen to six lanes SR 58 to Casa Loma Drive Construct six lanes Oswell Street SR 58 to Panorama Drive Widen to six lanes South of SR 58 to Taft Highway Construct two lanes Fairfax Road China Grade Loop to Casa Loma Drive Widen to two lanes Weedpatch Hwy Taft Highway to Niles Street Widen to 'six lanes Morning Drive Niles Street to Alfred Harrell Highway Construct six lanes Edison Road SR 58 to Alfred Harrell Highway Construct two lanes Unnamed Niles Road to Comanche Drive Construct two lanes Haley Street Bernard to SR 178 Construct four lanes Collectors Brimhall Road Allen Road to Coffee Road Widen to 4 lanes Stire Road Ming Avenue to Stockdale Highway Widen to 4 lanes Haley Street Bernard Street to Kentucky Street Widen to 4 lanes Sumner Street to California Avenue Widen to 4 lanes Bernard Street Union Avenue to River Road Widen to 4 lanes Mt. Vernon Avenue to Oswell Street Widen to 4 lanes Kentucky Street to Sumner Street Construct 4 lanes Paladino Drive Fairfax Road to Alfred Harrell Highway Construct 4 lanes College Avenue Fairfax Road to State Route 184 Construct 2 lanes Pacheco Road Renfro Road ext. to Buena Vista Road Construct 4 lanes Buena Vista Road to Gosford Road Widen to 4 lanes Gosford Road to Stine Road Construct 4 lanes Stine Road to Cottonwood Widen to 4 lanes Working Paper #2: Metropolitan Bakersfield Tran-~POrtafion Development Fee Page 18 Appendix C DISCUSSION PAPER PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES/PLAN FOR GROWTH PROJECT Park & Recreation CSA Proposal The County Board of Supervisors has the power to provide "extended services," specifically park, recreation and cultural serVices, via the formation of a County Service Area (CSA) or Areas. County Service Areas may be formed by the Board following a protest hearing or a majority vote of the electorate. Zones of benefit may be formed within CSA's and CSA's may include cities with the concurrence of the city council. Current County policy is to generally require a petition signed by a majority of the property owners within a proposed CSA prior to the formation of a CSPu The primary exception to this policy is the provision of school crossing guards. The Board only requires a request from the affected school board requesting creation of a crossing guard CSA or zone of benefit. Currant budget trends indicate that the County's Parks and Recreation budget will continue to be inadequate for the maintenance of existing park facilities and for the provision of recreation and cultural services. Therefore, to meet the public's demand for improved park, recreation and cultural services, an alternative means to provide and fund these services must be implemented. The following proposal is made to address this situation: Structure 1) A countywide park, recreation and cultural services CSA should be formed, including all incorporated and unincorporated residents of the County. 2) Zones of benefits 'for park and recreation purposes should be formed consistent with the boundaries of all park and recreation providers.1 3) Zones of benefit should be formed to construct, maintain and operate local, county parks in areas outside of existing park and recreation providers. 1As a part of this .process, it may be appropriate in some locations for the existing providers to reevaluate current service arrangements to eliminate duplication and/or gaps in the system. 1 4) Determ~rtation as to the level of park and recreation services desired, and assessment necessary to provide the desired services, should be delegated to the provider within each zone of benefit. (The county park and recreation department in some cases.)2 5) Consistent with current county policy, local county facilities should be transferred to local providers whenever possible. 6) The viability of separate zones of benefit for cultural services (such as libraries and museums) should be further evaluated. Financing The County should commit to m,aintaining existing levels of general fund financing for park and recreation services. Cities should also make the same commitment. However, any increased consu-uction, maintenance, or operations costs would be funded by the CSA. Thus, those jurisdictions desiring to improve service levels would determine the cost of those improved services and request the County Board of Supervisors to impose the appropriate assessment within their zone of benefit. Those jurisdictions not desiring to improve services, or not requiting additional revenues for those services would simply not request imposition of an assessment. With the CSA structure in place, jurisdictions would be free to make this evaluation annually. Thus, some jurisdictions may not desire assessments at this time, but would be able to request them in the future. The County Board of SuPervisors would retain the ability to impose countywide assessments for. regional facilities only. No such assessment is proposed at this time, but one may be proposed in the future. Similarly, new zones of benefit could be created by the Board of Supervisors in the future should additional facilities or services be desired. Conclusion The County sincerely seeks to develop a count3~ride partnership for the provision of the parks, recreation and cultural services desired by the public. New thinking and new approaches will be necessary if a long term solution is to be implemented. At this point, only the parks and recreation aspects of the concept have been developed. However, a similar structure for cultural services could also be used, except that the jurisdictions involved and the zones of benefit would be different. 2The use of CSA financing may be used in junction with the Quimby Act provisions for the acquisition of park land. 2' Appendix D DISCUSSION PAPER FIRE SERVICES/PLAN FOR GROWTH PROJECT Background Four basic, potential sources of increased revenues for fire services have been identified. These are: · Increased Fire Fund tax rates · Implementation of fire services assessment · Expanded development fees * Increased city reimbursements Proposal It appears most practical to fund improved fire services via assessments. The assessments should exclude: (1) cities which provide their own fire protection, and (2) cities which pay full costs via post-Proposition 13 contracts. Any city which does not have a "full cost contract" will be given the option of including the city in the assessment program or entering into a new contract on a full cost recovery basis (revised contracts can allow a phase-in period so that the existing County subsidy of city services is reduced gradually). Greation of an assessment of this type can be accomplished by the Board of Supervisors via protest hearing or maiority vote election. It is recommended that the Board establish the assessments via an election in Sune, 1991. Implementation Plan: To successfully implement this plan, the following steps are necessary: 1. Refine operational and facility needs projection for the next ten years. Projections must be related to potential revenue increases so that a variety of assessment scenarios can be tested. 2. Conduct a public survey regarding types of services desired and level of assessment which is acceptable. County Counsel advises chat a survey is appropriate as long as it is consistent with proper exercise of legislative authority. A 1988 case provides the closest parallel to our situation, wherein the State Supreme Gourt found that the development and drafting of a proposed initiative by Los Angeles County employees was proper. It should be noted that che employees did not - and cannot - participate.on County time in the campaign for the initiative once its development is complete. 3. Finalize the proposal based on t-mancial projections, discussions with cities/affected industry/public, and survey results. It must be emphasized chat the final proposal must be practical: i.e. consistent with good development practices, reflective of public service priorities, and amenable to effective management. It may not be the Fire Department's first choice or ideal solution - it simply must meet the test of being practical and effective. CONCLUSION Once a derailed proposal is developed, it should be presented to the community via public workshops. Following the workshops, a final plan may be presented to the Board of Supervisors for placement on the June, 1991 ballot.