Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.G 05/07/2012 A e. Aa Itewv#4.Q . ecALU a,ct � lase' DATE: May 7, 2012 • TO: Honorable Mayor-and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Eric Danly, City Attorney Scott Btodhun, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Information on Fiscal and Other Impacts of the Proposed Parcel Tax Initiative.to Fund Specified Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Accepting Information on Fiscal and Other Impacts of the Proposed Parcel Tax Initiative to Fund Specified Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma BACKGROUND On April 13, 2012, a revised proposed ballot initiative was submitted to the City which its proponents titled The Save Petaluma Parks and Recreation.lnitiative. In accordance with applicable law, the City Attorney, piovided a ballot title and summary on April 16, 2012, and a notice of intent to circulate voter petitions on the measure for signature was published in the Argus Courier on April 19; 2012.. The proponents;a recurrently gathering signatures and hope to submit sufficient signatures in time to qualify the measure for the November 6, 2012 general election. If approved by two-thirds of Petaluma-voters, the measure would impose an annual parcel tax on Petaluma parcel owners ranging from S52 for single-family residential parcels to S500 for multiple-residential-unit parcels with 11 or more units. "hax?amounts would vary depending upon parcel use, and whether a parcel is improved. The rmeasure would exempt parcels owned by schools, senior citizens, religious institutions,government; and nonprofit service organizations, and exempt common areas, as defined in the measure. The measure would also partially exempt-affordable housing projects. The tax proceeds would only be used to fund specified parks and recreation projects and programs,in estimated specified amounts for each project, and specified,administrative costs of the City. If approved, the tax would be-levied annually through July; 2027. Agenda Revie IP City.Attorney . . Finance Di eta _ - City Manage'— `y` ��s DISCUSSION The Elections Code establishes specified deadlines for the City Clerk to examine the initiative petitions and certify signatures, and for the City to take'certain other actions related to a proposed ballot measure. The City Council may, but need not, direct staff to prepare a report on the fiscal and other impacts of a proposed measure. When the City Council directs that such a report be prepared, it must be presented to the City Council no later than 30 days after the City Clerk certifies the sufficiency of the petition. However, such a report, if ordered, may be completed sooner, while the petition is being circulated. Because little time remains forgathering signatures in time to qualify for the November election, at the City Council meeting on April 16th, the Council directed staff to provide analysis of the fiscal and other impacts of the measure?at the May 7th meeting, rather than waiting until after submission and certification of petitions. Proceeding in this manner would give the measure proponents additional time in which to gather enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. This is because if the,City has already prepared a report on the measure impacts while signatures;are being;gathered, the measure proponents:need not allow for an extra 30 days' time after certification of the petition for the preparation of a report on impacts of the measure. FINANCIAL IMPACTS City costs to date related to theTroposed measure consist of City staff time(including City Attorney time) spent on communications with measure proponents, review and comment on measure drafts, preparation of the required measure title and summary, and review of notice of intent to circulate petitions and the affidavit of publication, as well as time spent preparing this report and-the attached summary ofimpacts. Financial impacts of the measure itself, should it pass, are contained in the attached summary. According to the text of the measure, it is intended to produce total tax revenues over a 15 year period of approximately $11,922,000, to be allocated to specified park projects and programs as prescribed in the measure. Costs incurred by the City in administering the measure Would be-recoverable from tax proceeds. ATTACHMENTS 1. The "Save Petaluma Parks and Recreation" Initiative, as-submitted April 13, 2012 2. Ballot Title and Summary—Parcel Tax Initiative to Fund Specified Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma 3. Published Notice of-Intent to Circulate Petition and Ballot Summary 4. Resolution Accepting Information on Fiscal and Other Impacts of the Proposed Parcel Tax Initiative to Fund Specified Parks and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma RESOLUTION ACCEPTING INFORMATION ON FISCAL AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PARCEL TAX INITIATIVE TO FUND SPECIFIED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE'CITY OF PETALUMA WHEREAS, on April 13, 2012, a revised proposed ballot initiative was submitted to the City which its proponents titled "The Save Petaluma Parks and Recreation Initiative"; and WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the City Attorney provided a ballot title and summary on April 16, 2012; and WHEREAS, a notice of intent to circulate voter petitions on the measure for signature was published in the Argus Courier on April 19, 2012; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 9212, on April 16, 2012, the City Council referred the proposed initiative to staff for analysis and a summary of its potential fiscal and other impacts on the City; and WHEREAS, at a public meeting on May 7, 2012, the City Council considered and accepted the Summary of Fiscal and Other Impacts of the Proposed Parcel Tax Initiative to Fund Specified Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma attached hereto as Exhibit "A„ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma as follows: 1. The Summary of Fiscal and Other Impacts of the Proposed-Parcel Tax Initiative to Fund Specified Park and Recreation Facilities and Programs in the City of Petaluma attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is accepted as;an accurate estimate of fiscal and other impacts of the proposed initiative pursuant to California Elections Code section 9212. 2. The City Council Finds that the report attached as, Exhibit "A" hereto concerning fiscal and other impacts of the proposed measure sufficiently addresses such impacts so as to inform the City Council and Petaluma voters, and declares that no further such report;will be requested by the City Council at or after such time as any petitions relating to the initiative are submitted and/or certified by the City Clerk. 1875087.3 SUMMARY OF FISCAL AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THEPROPOSED PARCEL TAX INITIATIVE TO FUMY SPECIFIED PARK'AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE CITY:OF PETALUMA (Elections_Code section 9212) On April 13, 2012, a revised proposed ballot initiative was:submitted to the City, titled The.Save Petaluma Parks and Recreation Initiative. In accordance•withapplicable law, the City Attorney provided a ballot title mild summary on April 16, 2012, and a-notice of intent to circulate voter petitions on the measure for signature was published in the Argus Courier on April 19, 2012. The proponents are currently gathering signatures and hope to submit sufficient signatures in time to qualify the measure for the November 6, 2012 general election. If approved by two-thirds:of Petaluma voters, the measure would impose an annual parcel tax on Petaluma parcel owners ranging from $52 for single-family residential parcels to $500 for multiple-residential-unit parcels with 11 or more units. Tax amounts would vary depending upon parcel use, and whetheror not a parcel is improved. The measure would exempt parcels owned by schools, senior citizens, religious institutions, government; and nonprofit service organizations, and exempt common areas, as defined in the measure, and would partially exempt affordable housing projects. The tax proceeds would be segregated from other City funds and used only to fund specified parks and recreation projects, facilities and programs, in estimated specified amounts for each project, and specified administrative costs of the City. The tax would be levied annually throughidly, 2027. On April 16, 2012, the City Council referred the proposed initiative measure to City staff and directed that staff report back at the regular Council meeting of May 7, 2012 on the significant potential impacts of the proposed initiative, in lieu of requiring an impact analysis after certification of any petitions, should certification occur. The purpose of this summary is to discuss significant potential fiscal and other impacts of the proposed initiative and to provide • information to assist City decision makers and members of the public in understanding the impacts of the proposed initiative. Elections Code Section 9212 provides that reports pursuant to that section may consider, in addition to fiscal impacts of a proposed initiative, the proposed initiative's impact on funding infrastructure and whether the measure is likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including maintenance, for current residents. The impact report can also consider effects on the internal consistency of the general plan or land uses, the City's ability to meet housing needs, the measu're's impact on the City's ability to attract and retain business and employment and any other relevant matters determined by the City Council. - 1 - IMPACTS OF THE PROP_OSEWINITIATIVE Significant potential•impacts of the proposed tnitiative, ifiapprozred by the voters, ate discussed below. 1. Financial Impacts A. Payment of the Parcel Tax by local property owners. The proposed initiative proposes an annual parcel tax for a period of fifteen years on all residential, commercial and other properties in the City, with some exemptions, as noted above. The table below shows property types and applicable annual tax rates. These funds would be financial obligations of property.owriers, payable with animal real property tax bills. Parcel Tax/Annual Property Type/Owner Amount per Parcel $ 52 Single family residential 200 Multifamily, 2—4 units 425 Multi family, 5-10 units 500 Multi family, 11 or more units 425 Hotels, motels, mobile home parks 200 Bed& Breakfast Inns, Rooming[-louses 52 Commercial-unimproved 365 Commercial - improved 52 Industrial - unimproved 365 Industrial -improved 52 Agricultural 365 Miscellaneous Exempt upon approval Private, parochial, special schools by the City Of an Senior citizens. exemption application Religious institutions Government Common areas Non-profit service organizations 50% exempt upon Affordable housing projects approval by1the.City of an exemption.application B. Beneficial revenue to the City for parks and recreation uses. The proposed initiative specifies eight parks and recreational projects, and the estimated total tax revenue to be used for each over the fifteen year period_of the tax: Aquatics facilities, including but not limited to Cavanaugh. $ 300,000 Center and the Petaluma Swim Center Petaluma Community Center 1,300,00 East Washington Park, including but not limited to athletic fields, children's play areas, pedestrian and bicycle 6,122,000 pathways Playgrounds, park facilities and tennis courts at local parks, including but not limited to Meadowview, Arroyo, Miwok, McNear, Del Oro and Lucchessi Parks 750,000 Polly Klass Performing Arts Center, including but not limited to infrastructure, seismic, safety and ADA retrofitting, re-built stage and improved lighting, sound, seating, interior and exterior 500,000 Hiking, running and biking trails, including but notlunited to those in Wiseman, Westridge, Walnut and LaTercera. Parks and near the Petaluma Marina 350,000 Prince Park, including but not limited to artificial turf fields 2,100,000 David Yearsley River Heritage Center 500,000 To the extent that improvements to these facilities would otherwise not be made, or would be made if and when City General Fund moneys become available, the proposed initiative would be a substantial benefit to the City and the community as a whole. C. Costs of maintenance for new facilities The proposed initiative does not provide separate maintenance funds. The measure specifies that the tax proceeds be used for the upgrading, renovating, repairing, updating and/or constructing of specified facilities. Any such costs incurred after,the expiration of the parcel tax and exhaustion of the tax proceeds would require other funding sources. Artificial turf fields at Prince Park would replace'the natural turf fields, thus there would_be a decrease in maintenance - 3 - and water costs if the measure is approved. Adding playing fields at East Washington Park • could allow for generation of user fees that could provide:maintenance revenue. D. City administrative costs. The proposed initiative provides that funds from the:parcel tax may be used to pay the City's cost of obligations which the proposed initiative woul'd.impose. Such obligations include overseeing the collection, receipt and enforcement of the parcel tax, establishing dedicated fund accounts, provision by the City Manager of administrative support creation of quarterly status reports on funded projects for the Oversight Committee to be established by the proposed initiative to monitor funding and expenditures, and preparation of a City Chief Fiscal- Officer annual report. Therefore, although the proposed initiative creates administrative obligations of the City, it provides funding for such obligations. 2. Impact on General Plan 2025 policies and land use. The proposed initiative supports existing City parks and recreation facilities identified in the General Plan 2025 and therefore does not create either internal inconsistencies within the General Plan 2025,land use conflicts'with the General Plan Land Use Map or conflicts with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. All of the facilities and parks targeted by the proposed initiative are either shown as existingparks on the General Plan.Land Use Map, are contained within existing park properties (such as the David Yearsley River Heritage Center in Steamer • Landing Park, and the Petaluma Community Center) or consist of-a cultural facility specifically recognized as a valuable community asset in the General Plan (such as the Polly Klass Performing Arts Center). The proposed initiative•is generally supportive of the following General Plan 2025 Parks and Recreation Goals: Goal 6-G-1 Retain and expand city-wide parkand.recreation.assets and programs to maintain.the quality of life they provide-to the community Goal 6-G-2 Ensure parks and recreational assets are maintained to allow safe access and use Goal 6-G-4 Support and value the health, education, social activities and overall well-being of our citizens, regardless•of age Goal 6-G-5 Recognize the inherent value to Petaluma's quality of life provided through music, theater, dance, visual and literary arts and cultural programs Several Policies and Programs which implement thcsc General Plan 2025 Goals make specific mention of restoring, maintaining and using facthttes which would be partially funded by the proposed parcel tax, including the Livery Stable/David Yearsley River l-Ieritage Center and Polly Klass PerforniingArts Center (Policy 6-P-1-I); aquatics programs at the Petaluma Swim Center (Policy 6-P-13); and support for senior activities, including the Cavanaugh Center (Policy 6-P-24-B). • - 4 - 3. Economic health and the City's ability to attract and retain business. Although not identified expressly in the City's General Plan 2025 Economic Health and Susttunability element,it is generally accepted that and°recreational amenities are important to the-overall vitality and attractiveness of a city. That;sense of vitality and community appeal can be an asset to attracting the types of sustainable economic development recognized as critical in the City's planning efforts to further economic health and sustainability. 4. Other Impacts Because the proposed initiative would fund and improve existing facilities, it will not negatively impact vacant land or open space in the City, will not create new sources of traffic congestion, and will not have a negative effect on business areas or areas planned for other types of development, including revitalization. The proposed initiative-would not affect the ability of the city to meet its General Plan housing goals as adopted in the City of Petaluma 2009-2014 Housing Element, adopted on June 15, 2009. The proposed measure, if approved, may complement the City's efforts to provide adequate housing serving all income and age groups by increasing the availability of free or modest-fee facilities for recreation which can be used by residents, including low and moderate income persons, families, seniors and youth. 1875356.2 - 5 -