Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - August 16, 2006 K-01AiiemDA ITDM K• I CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Tlu AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a Development Moratorium MEETING DATE: August 16, 2006 City Council Meeting PREPAID BY: City Manager/City Attorney's Office RECONWENOE© ACTION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1) The Council may immediately adopt by a four-fifths vote an urgency measure to prohibit for 45 - days the approval of any new development applications. Such an urgency ordinance requires a subsequent public hearing and adoption of findings after which the ordinance may be extended for 10 months 15 days; or 2) The Council may first call for a public hearing on a proposed 45 -day interim ordinance to prohibit new development, which must be subsequently adopted by a four-fifths vote, and direct the City Attorney to prepare draft findings for Council consideration. Such an urgency ordinance can be extended for 22 months and 15 days. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Council Meeting of August 2, 2006, Mayor Susan Hitchcock requested that the Council consider a moratorium on development. In accordance with Lodi Municipal Code, and the Council Protocol Manual adopted March 15, 1006, any member of the City Council may place an item on the agenda for consideration subject to the City Manager's discretion as to the preparation of an accompanying staff report. To respond to the Mayor's request in a timely manner, her request for consideration of a development moratorium is before the Council. A staff report regarding the merits or consequences of a moratorium has not been prepared. Government Code Section 65858, authorizes a city to adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance if it can by four-fifths vote find that such a measure is necessary to protect public safety, health, and welfare. The interim zoning ordinance would prohibit the approval of any use which may be in conflict with a planning or zoning proposal that a city is considering adopting within a reasonable time. Such a moratorium requires no public hearing, and is effective for only 45 days. However, after notice and a hearing, at which the Council must again make findings that the interim ordinance protects public safety, health, and welfare, the City Council may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days. The ordinance may again be extended for another year. Extensions require findings and a four-fifths vote. In the alternative, an interim 45 -day ordinance may be adopted by a four-fifths vote with the same finding as noted above following a noticed public hearing, which can be extended after notice and hearing, by a four-fifths vote for 22 months and 15 days. All "urgency" ordinances are limited by statue to a two-year period APPROVED: Additional prohibitions apply to moratoriums which would have a specific adverse impact upon continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects. Urgency Ordinances can be adopted for 45-days without a hearing presumably based on the assumption that once the development community hears a moratorium is proposed, or a downzoning is beim contemplated, an influx of applications could occur. Also, according to the sources referred to for the preparation of this memorandum, moratoria cannot be used to prohibit the processing of development applications. The City of San Juan Capistrano's interim ordinance was held invalid to the extent that it applied to processing development applications. Further analysis will be provided at the Council Meeting on the effect a moratorium may have on the City's approved Housing Element. Note: Cumin's California Land Use and Planning Law, 2004 Edition, Solano Press Books, and Gov't Code Section 65858 were used as sources for the information provided in this memorandum. FISCAL WPACT: Not analyzed for this memorandum. l , Blair King er City Manager City Attorney LEAGUE 1400 K Street, Stile 400 • Sacommio, C}alirtmia 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 OF CALL FORN to www.cad#es.org CITIES Fact Sheet: The ERAF Property Tax Shift In 1992,the State of California found itself in a serious deficit position. To meet its obligationsto find education at specified levels under Proposition 98, the state enacted legislation that shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local government (cities, counties and special districts). The state didthis by instructing county auditors to shift the allocation of local property tax revenues from local government to "educational revenue augmentation funds" (ERAFs), directing that specified amounts of city, county and other local agency property taxes be deposited into these funds to support schools. In fiscal 2006-07, the annual impact ofthe ERAF shift is a shortstopping of some $6.7 billion from cities, counties, special districts and the citizens those entities serve. Since their inception, the ERAF shills have deprived local governments of over $65 mien. Coutties have borne some 73 percent ofthis shift; cities have borne 16 percent. The state has provided some funding to local governments that it considers mitigation of ERAF. However, the vast majority of these funds are earmarked for particular purposes. Moreover, a relatively small portion of these funds has gone to cities. In 1992, California voters approved Proposition 172, which provided sales tax ftndingfor police, fire and other public safety programs. Proposition 172 funds provide only $23 billion annually to local government, leaving local citizens facing a $3.8 billion net ERAF gap in FY 2M-07. Considering all state subventions that the Legislative Analyst defines as" ERAF mitigation,"the net ERAF impact on cities is over $1 Billion in the current year.' As a part ofthe budget agreement that put Proposition 1 A of 2004 on the ballot to protect city revenues from additional shifts and state takeaways, cities counties and special districts agreedto contribute an additional $13 billlion per year in FY04-05 and FY05-06. Although these ERAF IlI shifts ended in FY06-07, the original shifts that began in 1992-94, have not been reduced at all2 Proposition IA, which passed by an unprecedented 84% yes vote, constitutionally protects major city revenues froin additional shifts to the state and strengthens local goverrutnent's ability to get reimbursement for unfunded mandates. However, it did not provide local govemmems with any new revenue nor reduce or alterthe ERAF I and I1 shifts. The ERAF takeaways have had real inpacts on Californians' quality of life andthe attractiveness of local comm unities to business. City resident shave experienced the following consequences ofthe ERAF shift: Cuts in human services, including parks, libraries andother community services Deferred mainte=nance on the public's investment in its infrastructure Greater pressure for increases in local taxes, fees and assessments Reductions in reserves and greater reliance on debt rather than cash financing for capital improvements All of this comes at atime vrhen California's population is gmwingrapidly and is creating demands for additional services and facilities. Indeed, thepopulation growth in cities (57 percent) has exceeded the statewide population growth rate (46 percent) overthe past 20 years. 71 ' Cities not including theCity/County of San Francisco. Z SubscWcnt to the trms£r ofthese funds, they am reallocated within each county bade to cities and counties to compensate 1brthe sale's repeal ofthe VLF baekfil in 2004 and the temporary % cent sales tax still to support the stale deficit reduction bonds. However, this mechanism does not alter the existence or veal effect ofthe ERAF I and Il shifs. RevAtgO6 mjgr For moreinfo: Michael Coleman 530.7583952 cokman@caimt www. CayarniaC9tyFumme.Cam EXHIBIT ONE EIRAF net of Sum Sum i IR 7,1 1 19 13 1 97 i 1 L 24101 Total 242-03 2003-04 88 92 NRU70 Tonal Cities -216 -483 -525 -523 -518 -511 -574 -606 -652 -704 -760 -807 -1,214 -1,303 -1,058 -10,454 Counties -544 -2,374 -2.583 -2,567 -2,540 -2,665 -2:787 -2,934 -3,181 -3,447 -3,688 -3,930 -4,545 -4,953 -5,109 -47,848 SSC DMricts -212 -252 -289 -285 -279 -271 -316 -339 -339 -364 -384 -409 -797 -851 -556 -5,935 Redev'tAgencie: -200 -65 -65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 -135 -250 -250 0 -1,040 -1,173 -3,175 -3,454 -3,374 -3,337 -3,447 -3,677 -3,879 -4,171 -4,515 -4,906 -5,281 -6,806 -7,357 -6,723 -65,276 EIRAF net of Sum Proposhion 172 19.9 1994-95 IR 7,1 $$19$8-99 1999 UM12001 1$$$. Total Cities 84 88 92 91 104 109 123 131 134 130 139 149 159 163 1,697 Counties 1,301 1,400 1,510 1,595 1,682 1,757 1,974 2,153 2,096 2,143 2,274 2,456 2,628 2,707 27,676 Spec Districts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -339 0 1,385 1,488 1,602 1,686 1,786 1,877 2,119 2,283 2,218 2,273 2,413 2,606 2,787 2,871 29,373 EIRAF net of Sum Prop172 1992-93199 1&L95 1995-96 IM -97 1997-M 19jL99 1$$$. 2000-012001-0 2Q& -Q2 20-04 Q0Q"7@ Total Cities -216 -399 -437 -431 -426 -407 -465 -483 -520 -570 -630 -668 -1,065 -1,145 -895 -8,757 Counties -544 -1,073 -1,183 -1,057 -945 -983 -1,030 -960 -1,028 -1,351 -1,544 -1,656 -2,089 -2,325 -2,402 -20,172 Spec Districts -212 -252 -281 -285 -279 -271 -316 -339 -339 -364 -384 -409 -797 -851 -556 -5,935 Redev'tAgencle: -200 -65 -65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75 -135 -250 -250 0 -1,040 -1,173 -1,789 -1,966 -1,772 -1,651 -1,662 -1,812 -1,782 -1,887 -2,285 -2,633 -2,868 -4,201 -4,570 -3,853 -35,903 Sources: PSAF (Prop 172) actual$ through 2000-01 from State Controller. ERAF and PSAF actuals by agency from Calif State Assn of Counties survey of County Aud0ors. FY06- 07 is estimated, Updated Augoe. &woos GatlforniaGitlFinanu.Gom Michael Coleman 530-758-3952