Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2001 Joint City Council/RDA Study SessionMINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2001 :~~*~~*~~*~~*~*~:~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~~~:~~:~~~:~~~:~~~:~~:~~~~~~~~~*~*~~~~~~*~~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schiffner called the Joint Study Session to order at 3:06 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, PAPE, KELLEY,SCHIFFNER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: METZE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Community Services Director Sapp, Information/Communications Manager Dennis, Public Works Manager Payne, Recreation and Tourism Manager Edelbrock, City Treasurer Ferro and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Proposed Budget Revenue Review. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the information presented was a follow-up of the proposed annual budget for the City. He explained that staff proposed that Council consider new revenue sources such as a Park and Recreation Assessment District. He noted that due to Proposition 218, the Park and Recreation Assessment would ha~e to be done by a vote of the property owners. City Manager Watenpaugh presented a summary of the City's revenues and explained that the revenues were reviewed annually and modified during the budget process by staff administratively. He noted that Council had authorized the studies to address the following: 1) Uniform ' Traffic Mitigation Fees - to determine street related costs that should be borne by new development; and 2) Public Safety Community Facilities ' District - to determine what portion of Public Safety, Police & Fire new development should pay. He noted that on the expenditure side of the ' ledger, the City had settled three major lawsuits. He explained that the settlements were all anticipated and the City had maintained the necessary funds to meet the demands. He noted the need to generate new revenue to ' offset the cost of the new Fire Station as well as the cost for ongoing operations and maintenance of the Stadium. City Manager Watenpaugh , explained that although revenues had increased, there was a need to consider another potential revenue through a Parks and Recreation Assessment, and it would be necessary for a study to obtain an Engineer's Analysis. He PAGE TWO - STUDY 5ESSION - JUNE 7, 2001 indicated that if Council were comfortable with the information provided, then staff could be directed to place an item on the Agenda regarding authorization for the study for the Parks and Recreation Assessment. He explained that an Engineer's Analysis provided the information for a Benefit Assessment and in turn the information could be passed on to the residents. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that a number of cities in Riverside County have Park and Recreation Assessments. He indicated that staff looked at Parks as a quality of life issue. He presented an article titled "The Impact of Parks on Property Value" and asked Council to review the information. He explained that the article provided an explanation of the way a value could be placed on a park. He further indicated that the two cities south of the City of Lake Elsinore had Park and Recreation Assessments and presented an overview of their fees. He noted that the LLMD used to pay for park services, however when Proposition 218 was passed, the fee for parks was removed and the amount lost was approximately $25.30 per parcel, for a total of $741,000 per year. He indicated that staff would suggest an assessment of a similar amount. He indicated that the General Fund now supported the parks, which were a non-mandated service, however staff and the public would like to see the parks preserved. Jeff Cooper, Harris and Associates, presented a time line to develop a Park Maintenance Assessment District and indicated that if Council approved a Feasibility Study and it was completed, then Council could decide if they wished to proceed with an Assessment District. He presented an overview of the Preliminary Schedule of Proceedings necessary to take the item to a ' property owner Ballot Tabulation. He indicated that each vote would be worth the assessed amount and required a majority vote. He noted that if the ; vote passed by majority in favor, the Council would still have to make the ' decision to place an Assessment; if the vote failed to pass, it would be a dead ' issue. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley clarified the procedure. Mr. Cooper confirmed. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the Assessment would include the City's Master Plan of Parks. Mr, Cooper indicated that the study would reflect the benefit to specific areas. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley questioned why the benefit to specific areas was not brought to Council's attention in 1997. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that Proposition 218 was implemented in 1996 and required a 2/3rds vote and the City came within 2% to 3% of passing at that time. Mr. Cooper stated that when the issue went before the voters it included items that were not park related and unavailable through the mechanism presented today, which focuses on Park and Recreation only. PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 7, 2001 Mayor Schiffner questioned the difference in information between the Feasibility Study and the Engineers Report. Mr. Cooper stated that the Feasibility Study would provide ranges and options; once an option was selected, the Engineers Report would addresses the option in greater detail and refine the option in a manner that meets the required Code. Mayor Schiffner asked if once the Feasibility Study was done, could Council have a reasonable picture of what the assessments would be. Mr. Cooper stated that the amounts would be available after the Feasibility Study. Mayor Schiffner clarified the selection of options. Mr. Cooper stated that the options would include a range of assessment from $25, $30, etc. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked if there was some way to include the public in the decision of an option. Mr. Cooper suggested that Council could review the options and take it to the public at that time for input. Mayor Schiffner noted that the question before Council was whether to place the request for financing of the Feasibility Study on the Agenda. Councilman Pape stated that it would cost $22,100 for the Feasibility Study and asked if there would be additional costs to do the Engineer's report. City Manager Watenpaugh asked Mr. Cooper that if once the Feasibility Study were done that the Assessment District could pay for the Engineer's Report and all other costs. Mr. Cooper stated that it could and would be a one-time cost. He explained that the Engineers Report would not cost more than $15,000 and the Mail Ballot Election would cost approximately $15,000, for an approximate total of $50,000. Mayor Schiffner noted that should Council decide to proceed, a mare firm cost could be provided. Mr. Cooper indicated that after Phase I was completed, he could provide exact amounts. Councilman Pape noted that each year an up-date had to be provided and asked if that meant the assessment would change annually. Mr. Cooper explained that it would be similar to the Citywide Lighting and Landscaping District, which must be updated each year. He explained that one of the options that Council could consider would be an annual escalation not to exceed a certain % to address inflation, which would be included on the Ballot. He noted that if the escalation clause were not included, then the amount would remain static and would not include the cost of inflation. There was general discussion regarding the benefit amount and the affect on developed parcels and undeveloped parcels. Mr. Cooper e~lained that the purpose of the Feasibility Study would be to determine the benefit to each parcel and would include the Master Plan of Parks. He gaee an overview of the difference in fees between developed and vacant land. Councilman Pape stated that his concern was in regard to a property owner holding 1000 acres of vacant land equal to 6,000 e.d.u. would have a vote PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION - J[TNE 7, 2001 equal to 12,000 homeowners. Mr. Cooper explained that in some Districts there was a diminishing benefit and as the parcel gets bigger there would be diminishing benefit and the cost and benefit units would decrease. Councilman Pape questioned the cost to apartments. Mr. Cooper presented an overview of the formula used to address apartments and stated that a Feasibility Study would address these issues. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that whether Council chose to go forward or not, any funding for Parks must go through the process set by Proposition 218. Mayor Schiffner stated that the process was done in a democratic way and that the vote should be decided the cost; the greater the cost the greater the vote. Mr. Cooper noted that the LLMD addressed a more generic range of items, however the proposed Assessment District would specifically address parks and would not include any other item. Mayor Schiffner stated that what was being proposed was an item to place before the property owners and whether the Council supported the Assessment or not it would be up to a vote of the residents to decided if the Assessment would be allowed. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated that Council could not make decisions or even take information to the public until a study was done to provide options. City Manager Watenpaugh explained that should Council approve a study and once it was done, staff would take the information to the Users Groups and should they feel that it would not work, staff would suggest not going forward with an Assessment. He noted that the Feasibility Study would provide a range of options. Councilman Pape asked how Council could ask the residents to pay more money when the City was adding a new Skate Park at McVicker Park, a new Baseball Field at Swick/Mattich Field and the parks were being maintained. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that there was a million dollars in new expenditures in the next budget year and without new revenue sources there would be a need for budget reductions. He explained that since parks were a non-mandated service they would be affected to offset some of the other costs. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stated her respect for the Users Groups and stressed the need for their participation in regard to this issue. She commented that either the community moved forward as a whole or an alternate decision would have to be made. PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 7, 2001 Mayar Schiffner stated that it must be made very clear that the proposed action would be a revenue source dedicated to parks so that they would never again be in jeopardy. He noted that should the Assessment be approved, it would release the funds from the General Fund to go toward some other need, such as the new Fire Station and without the assessment, Council would be forced to reduce some other services and not necessarily parks. Councilwoman Kelley noted the need far a TUMF Fee as well. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed the TUMF Fee and presented an overview of the use and cost of the TUMF Fee. He noted that the surrounding communities have TUMF fees and Park Assessment Fees as well. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the decisions that the Council made helped to improve the community. He indicated that the Net Program, Street Paving Program, Code Enforcement and Graffiti ha~e cost the City, however they ha~e given back to the community as a whole. He stated that this action does not mean that the City would close the parks, however it was necessary to look at another revenue stream. Councilwoman Kelley clarified that the Skate Park was built with Park Bond Money and could not be used for operations and maintenance on the parks. Councilman Pape asked when the TUMF Fee Study was going to be presented to Council. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it would be brought before Council sometime in late August or September. Mayor Schiffner noted that the TUMF Fee applied to new residents only and had no bearing on the Park Assessment being discussed. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Hyland questioned the Assessment for Apartments that was addressed a few weeks ago. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that was in regard to Public Safety Community Facilities District, which addresses Fire and Police and it was on hold. Steve Slack, Lake Elsinore Little League, indicated that he was in favor of the Park and Recreation Assessment and would like to see the Feasibility Study go forward. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley stressed the importance of having the Users Groups involved in the decision making process. Mayor Schiffner noted that the Study would not necessarily affect the current level of the maintenance of the parks. He indicated that the Park Maintenance Assessment District would be designed to guarantee that the parks would continue to be maintained. , PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 7, 2001 City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it would depend on what the Feasibility , Study found for what level of service. He indicated that it would be on the level of service decided. Carlos Cardina, American Soccer League, noted how close Measure BB was to , passing. He stated that the City did not have enough parks and children need a place to play. , Dennis Wilson, Lake Elsinore Valley Soccer Club, concurred with Mr. Slack and offered his assistance in getting information out to the parents. Ms. Hyland asked for clarification regarding the lighting of the fields. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that the User Groups pay for the use of lighting. Mayor Schiffner noted that field lighting was discussed at the last two meetings. City Treasurer Ferro stated that it was important for the user groups to contact the large property owners and convince them of the importance of the Assessment. He indicated how important it was to explain the benefit of the Assessment and the long-range benefit it would haee on property values. . 5 ; Mr. Cooper stated that it was very important for the i7ser Gra~ps to join_together; however there would always be a portion of the voters who would vote yes and a portion that would vote no, however it was the undecided that would be important to reach in order to educate them on how important the parks were to the youth and ' the benefit of the Assessment to them. Jim Grimes, Football, stated his support of the Assessment and offered to help ~; promote the available information. He noted how important it was to inform the ! public that the money from the Assessment would go to a separate account just for I 4he Parks. Mike Landow, Girls Softball, stated his support of the Assessment and noted the positive results of dedicating the funds in a permanent account for the Maintenance of the Parks. Mayor Pro Tem Brinley asked if there was a consensus to place this item on the , June 26th Agenda. Mayor Schiffner stated that as Mayor he could set an item on the Agenda and he would asked that staff place an item for approval for a Feasibility Study for Park Maintenance Assessment District at the Regular City Council Meeting of June 26, 2001. AI)JOURNMENT ' MOVED B~' BRINLEY, SECONDED BY PAPE AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VO'd'E OF THOSE PRESENT TO ADJOUI2N THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AT 4:17 P.M. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION - JUNE 7, 2001 ~~ ~~ ROBERT L. SCHIF NER, MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~ --, ~ '~ ~ % /~~%i'C~'' ~ ~ ~~ GENIE KE~~.EY, CHAIRW REDEVE~OPMENT AGENCY ATTEST: ~ ADRIA L. BRY NG, ' DEPUTY CITY CLERK I CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE