June 17, 2008 Fresno County Board of Supervisors First Public Hearing / First Reading of Ordinance Public Facilities Impact Fees and Capital Improvement Plan

1 Challenge  As County population grows greater demands for County services occur.  Greater service demands require additional/expanded facilities to house/equip the services and service providers.  The County has identified a Capital need of approximately $1.4 billion.  Staff has identified a Capital Improvement Program of approximately $483 million over the next 5 years.  Where will the needed funding come from?  County General Plan policy PF-B.1 “development shall pay it’s fair share for developing new facilities”.

2 A.Current Government Financial Landscape in California for funding improvements and expansion of County facilities is very limited.  Proposition 13 eliminated a major source of funding.  Federal and State Grants, are very rare.  The County does not have sufficient general fund revenues to meet these demands.  Impact Fees are one small source that may be used to fund only growth related impacts. Funding

3 Funding (continued). B.BBR dated June 6, 2005 – Recommendation for implementation of Impact Fees Ordinance.  Possibility of generating funds for facilities expansion through levy of facilities impact fees.  Counties have legal authority to levy impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act.  A recent survey indicated that at least 24 counties in California levy some form of facilities impact fees. C.On June 14, 2005, Board authorized MuniFinancial to complete a Public Facilities Impact Fees Report.

4 MuniFinancial Report  Public Protection  General Government  Libraries  Parks and Open Space  Sheriff’s Patrol and Investigation  Health and Human Services b.Developed a financial model: $value of existing facilities ÷ population served = $/person. c.Population served varies by each category. D.Submission of report by MuniFinancial on February 17, 2006, identified categories that could be subject to levy of facilities impact fees. a.

5 MuniFinancial Report (continued).  Public Protection/General Government includes population they serve and a portion of the worker population.  Health and Human Services/Parks and Open Space includes population of cities and unincorporated areas.  Library service population excludes Huron and Coalinga.  Sheriff’s Patrol and Investigation limited to unincorporated areas. d.Developed a fee schedule for the maximum justifiable impact fees for each category.

6 Outreach Program County Staff conducted extensive outreach with the groups listed below:  Fifteen City Councils  Building Industry Association  Regional Jobs Initiative  Farm Bureau  Economic Development Corporation  Affordable housing developers –Habitat for Humanity –Coalition for Urban Development and Excellence –Self-Help Enterprises –Fresno Urban Neighborhood Development  CEN-CAL Business Finance Group  Greater Fresno Area Chamber of Commerce  Fresno County Planning Commission  Public Meeting  Fresno Bee Editorial Board  Informational packets to community papers

7 The Proposed Ordinance 1.Establishes fee schedule and a policy for annual adjustments. 2.For customer convenience provides for collection of fees by the Cities. 3.Establishes a Five Year Capital Improvement Program. 4.Allows for deferral of impact fees on low and moderate income housing. a.The fee deferment program for low and moderate income housing proposes a sunset provision of 24 months.

8 The Proposed Ordinance (continued). 5.Waives impact fees on agricultural buildings that are open on at least one side. a.Requires County to fund cost of program through other means. 6.Establishes process to study fees for unusual projects. 7.Convenience fee for credit card payment. 8.Two year grace period. a.TTM (tentative tract map) approval (from Fee implementation). b.Final maps from approval of map. c.Vesting vs. Non-vesting. d.SPR (site plan reviews).

9 Fees apply September 15, 2008 Ordinance Effective Date Approved Final Maps SPR’s Vesting Tract Maps 2 Years Non-Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Application Deemed Complete Prior to Ordinance Effective Date 2 Years Years (Unknown) Fees apply Fees apply

10

11 Proposed Soft Start MuniFinancial report justified maximum fee. Staff is recommending soft start with the following:  Four year phase in at approximately 20% a year plus proportional escalation.  Year 1 : 20%  Year 2 : 40%  Year 3 : 60%  Year 4 : 80%  Year 5 : 100%  Grace period of up to two years.

12 Capital Improvement Plan  Living Document  Eligible only for growth related expansion.  19 projects utilizing Public Facilities Impact Fees identified over the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan totaling approximately $475 million.  Between % of program revenues.  Additional Funding Sources Required.  General fund  Tax Exempt Bond funds  Taxable Bond funds  Library Measure B funds  Other County funding sources

13 Next steps in fee adoption  Hold the second public hearing/and second reading of the ordinance on July 8,  Finalize Memorandum of Understanding with City of Fowler.  Fees effective September 15, 2008, 90 days after first public hearing/first reading.

14

15