Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 11142013 - PPC Agenda Pkt (2)       FINANCE COMMITTEE November 14, 2013 1:30 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Federal D. Glover , Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee         1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. Review of Livable Communities Trust Fund (Lisa Driscoll, County Administrator’s Office)   4. Draft Policy Governing the Use of Special Revenues (Lisa Driscoll, County Administrator’s Office)   5.Adjourn   6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, December 9.   The Finance Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Finance Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Finance Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor, during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: Lisa Driscoll, Committee Staff Phone (925) 335-1021, Fax (925) 646-1353 lisa.driscoll@cao.cccounty.us FINANCE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:11/14/2013   Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 9/17/2013 C.49   Referral Name: Livable Communities Trust Fund  Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 Referral History: On October 14, 2013, the Finance Committee directed staff to provide 'relevant' documents tot he Livable Communities Trust (Fund 133700) at its November meeting. The following information was provided at the October 14, 2013 meeting:  Authority to Collect: November 15, 2005 Board Order establishing a Trust Fund and Resolution No. 2002/262 adopted July 9, 2002, which approved the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment. 1. Source of Funds: An $8,000 per unit fee from Shapell Industries, Braddock and Logan Group II, and Ponderosa Homes for units not identified in the Camino Tassajara Affordable Housing Program. 2. Purpose of Funds at Genesis: To assist with the implementation of the Smart Growth Action Plan, which contains provisions designed to improve the livability of communities throughout the County. 3. Level of Board Discretion Over Use of Funds: The Board has discretion over these funds consistent with the Smart Growth Action Plan. 4. Method of Disbursement: Monies are maintained in a Trust Fund administered by the Conservation and Development Department and have not been distributed. 5. Current Estimated Balance: $6,158,336 ($670,320 of this amount is appropriated in the current year) 6. Annual Estimated Revenue: $670,3207. On September 17, 2003, the County Administrator requested that the Board of Supervisors refer to the Finance Committee a review of special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors and a review of the current policy governing the use of special revenues. On December 15, 2009, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged that special revenue funds have been established to mitigate the impact of projects approved in certain areas of the County and that they have been tended for uses that will benefit the quality of life for the communities in which the project is approved and special revenue funds originated. The Board affirmed that existing special revenues funds are to be administered by the Supervisors serving in the district for which a special revenue fund was creased. It has been almost four years since the Board formally reviewed these funds. The County Administrator requested a Finance Committee review of special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors including review of the current policy governing the use of special revenues This report provides updated information on the Liveable Communities Trust. Referral Update: As requested, attached are materials provided by Catherine Kutsuris, Director of the Department of Conservation and Development as relevant to the Livable Communities Trust Fund. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Receive direction from Finance Committee. Fiscal Impact (if any): Not applicable. Attachments Livable Communities Trust Fund Materials FINANCE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:11/14/2013   Department:County Administrator Referral No.: 9/17/2013 C.49   Referral Name: Policy Governing Special Revenues Administered by the Board of Supervisors  Presenter: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 Referral History: On September 17, 2003, the County Administrator requested that the Board of Supervisors refer to the Finance Committee a review of special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors and a review of the current policy governing the use of special revenues. On August 4, 2009, the Board of Supervisors received and approved a recommendation from the Internal Operations Committee to refer to the Finance Committee a review of the draft findings and recommendations for policies governing Board-administered special revenues. On December 9, 2008, following a discussion about a proposal to allocate County Regional Enhancement funds to provide industrial education and vocational training to West County youths, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) a review of how special revenue or “trust” funds are expended by the County and the possible development of a policy or protocol regarding the allocation and expenditure of such funds. As the referral was made after the IOC’s final scheduled meeting for 2008, the Board referred the matter to the 2009 IOC for action. The IOC had been studying the matter since April and compiled historical records on an array of Board-administered special revenues, which was provided to each Board of Supervisors member in a special reference binder. The committee developed the attached draft policy including findings and recommendations for protocols for establishing and allocating special revenues, and also clarifying some of the terminology typically associated with special revenues. Prior to making the final recommendations to the Board, the IOC desired to have the Finance Committee review the proposed findings and recommendations and provide constructive feedback to the IOC. The IO Committee had also asked the County Administrator to review and comment on the proposed policy.  Referral Update: On October 14, 2013, the Finance Committee recommended specific changes to the draft policy. On October 14, 2013, the Finance Committee recommended specific changes to the draft policy. The new draft policy is attached. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Provide staff direction regarding desired changes to the draft Board policy governing special revenues administered by the Board of Supervisors. Fiscal Impact (if any): Not applicable. Attachments 2009 Draft Policy Governing Board-administered Special Revenues Current (December 2009) Policy Governing Special Revenues Administered by the Board of Supervisors 2013 Draft Policy Governing Board-administered Special Revenues Print Back to Calendar Return Previous Next C.97 Consent C.97 BOS Agenda Other Actions Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Time (Duration): Special Revenue Mitigation Funds Submitted For:Supervisors Mary Piepho and Susan Bonilla Department:Board of Supervisors District III Noticed Public Hearing:No Official Body:Board of Supervisors Presenter/Phone, if applicable: Audio-Visual Needs: Handling Instructions: District:All Districts Contact, Phone:Tomi Van de Brooke, 820-8683 Information Recommendation(s): ACKNOWLEDGE that special revenue funds have been established to mitigate the impact of projects approved in certain areas of the County and that they have been intended for uses that will benefit the quality of life for the communities in which the project is approved and special revenue funds originate. AFFIRM that existing special revenue funds are to be administered by the Supervisor serving in the district for which a special revenue fund was created, unless specified otherwise when the fund was established. AFFIRM that existing special revenue funds are to be used with the support and authorization of the current Supervisor serving in the district where the special district fund originated. Fiscal Impact: No General Fund impact. Revenue Neutral. Background: There have been a number of large projects proposed by applicants and eventually approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors that require mitigation to offset the impacts to the communities where they are built and operate. One of many mechanisms that has been used to address impacts from these projects has been the creation of special mitigation funds to benefit the quality of life for the communities that are affected. Some of the funds are one time only and others are replenishing. These funds include, but are not limited to, the Conoco Phillips fund, C&H Sugar Cogeneration Project Fund, Futures Fund, Keller Canyon Mitigation Fund, Dougherty Valley Fund, and others. These special revenue funds were intended to be administered by the Supervisor serving in the district for the benefit of the district where the special revenue fund was created, unless specified otherwise when established. Budget Information Information about available funds Budgeted: Funds Available: Adjustment: Amount Available: Unbudgeted: Funds NOT Available: Amendment: Account Code(s) for Available Funds 1: Fund Transfers Attachments No file(s) attached. Page 1 of 2Agenda 10/10/2013http://64.166.146.155/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=12&get_year=2009&dsp=ag... County of Contra Costa OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 2013 TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE: Supervisor Federal Glover, Chair Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair FROM: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY GOVERNING SPECIAL REVENUES At the October 14 meeting, the Committee directed staff to rework the draft policy governing special revenues. The following changes are suggested: FINDINGS 1. As BOS membership has changed and County support staff has turned over, institutional knowledge about historical special revenues has been lost, philosophies between current Supervisors and their predecessors about allocating Community Benefit fees, e.g., Livable Communities Trust and Industrial Job Training & Education Fee, have changed, and new Supervisors often have very little information about the historic special revenues they have inherited within their Districts. 2. Many of the terms used to describe what we collectively refer to as “special revenues” are erroneously used interchangeably, causing confusion in the way certain funds are treated. For example, terms such as earmarksspecial appropriations, mitigation fees, trust funds, special revenue funds, community benefit funds, area of benefit fees have been used interchangeably when they actually have distinct differences that indicate whether or not the source of funds are general purpose revenues and affect how much discretion the Board may have over their allocation. 3. The County policies that govern the allocation and expenditure of special revenues are: a. the Process for Determining Compensation to Impacted Communities, to Be Paid by Benefitting Communities, as Mitigation for Waste Division adopted by the Board in 1989, b. the Policy Related to Practice of Allocating General Fund Revenue to Specific Communities or Programs adopted in 2005, and c. the County Budget Policy adopted in November 2006, all attached hereto for reference. d. specific procedures established by Order of the Board of Supervisors for a particular special revenue, e.g. Keller Canyon Mitigation funds, Crockett Cogeneration funds, West Contra Costa Transfer Station Mitigation funds. 4. Mitigation fees help to offset the cost of public improvements, public services, and community amenities related to a specific development projectmitigate the impacts of a development project on the affected community. 5. Developers sometimes desire to contribute Community Benefit Fees in order to promote community awareness and demonstrate a willingness to integrate into the community by sponsorship of local groups, and funding of community programs and services, and school projects. 6. Mitigation and Community Benefit Fees add costs to projects that are ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices. 7. When the purposes defined for special revenues are overly broad, unintended expenditures can result. 8. The creation of earmarksSpecial Board appropriations of general-purpose revenue for specific programs or activities places those programs or activities on a priority level that is equal to mandated programs and activities. 9. Special revenues are not, as a rule, highlighted and discussed during the annual budget deliberations because they are generally less discretionary than General Purpose revenues. 10. During times of severe fiscal crisis, programs funded with special revenues will be more insulated from budget reductions than programs funded from the General Fund. 11. While mitigation fees shall not be levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes, nothing specifically prohibits the Board from expending mitigation fees to maintain or enhance mandated services if those services are consistent with the purposes of the mitigation fee. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the following definitions to be used in County policies with regard to special revenues: a. Mitigation fee: Monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability, such as Area of Benefit mitigation fees (County Ordinance Code §913-2.404)1, Drainage fees, and Park Dedication fees, or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public improvements, public services, and 1 Area of Benefit mitigation fees are to be used specifically to improve the capacity and safety of the arterial road network within a defined boundary area as development occurs in order to mitigate traffic impacts generated by new development projects. community amenities related to the development project (California Government Code §66000mitigating the impacts of the project on the affected community). Such fees are not intended to be a general-purpose revenue measure for the host community. b. Trust Fund: Funds held in trust for any beneficiary or for any purpose, in a separate fund and not commingled with any public funds, earning interest, and to be paid to the beneficiary of such trust upon the termination thereof, including moneys held as trustee, agent or bailee by the state, any county, city or town, or other political subdivision of the state, or any commission, committee, board or office thereof or any court of the state, when deposited in any qualified public depositary. Trust funds are limited to the following purposes as defined by Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting: Pension, Investment, Private- Purpose and OPEB Irrevocable funds. c. Special Revenue Fund: Funds used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other than special assessments, expendable trusts, or major capital projects) that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified purposes. Examples of special revenue funds are those established for the purpose of financing schools, parks, or libraries. d. Community Benefit Fee: Voluntary payment(s) made by a developer or project sponsor that benefit a defined community, either through capital or community program improvements. These funds, typically, have been intended for uses that will benefit the quality of life for the communities in which a project is approved. In the past, these funds have been identified for such uses as economic development, health care, education, infrastructure, transportation, etc. e. EarmarkSpecial Board Appropriation: A designation by the Board of Supervisors dedicating a portion of one or more General- Purpose Revenue sources to a specific program or activity, and/or to benefit a specific geographic area. f. Special Revenues: Collectively, all of the preceding revenues. 2. Re-affirm Paragraph 5 of the County Budget Policy prohibiting the creation of new earmarksspecial Board appropriations, which states, “The County will not directly allocate a specific General- Purpose Revenue source to specific programs/communities. The policy would not apply to mitigation revenue that is derived from a project and intended to offset the environmental impacts from the project on the "host" community.” 3. Adopt a policy governing the Authorization for Mitigation and Community Benefit Fees and Their Allocation: a. Affirm that revenues from existing fees are to be administered by the Supervisor serving in the district for which the fee was created, unless specified otherwise when the fee was established, and may require Board of Supervisors approval prior to expenditure.. b. Affirm that revenues from existing fees are to be used with the support and authorization (to be signified by sponsorship or co-sponsorship of a Board Order/Proposal) of the current Supervisor serving in the district where the fee originated, unless specified otherwise when the fee was created. c. Affirm that when fees are created in the future, the authorizing Board Order or Resolution must specify: ƒ the type of fee (mitigation or community benefit) ƒ in what geographic area the funds are to be used, e.g., countywide or limited to one or more supervisorial districts; ƒ the specific purpose of the fee; ƒ the recommended process for allocating the funds; and ƒ the department that will be responsible for administration of the funds;. ƒ measurable performance outcomes that demonstrate how the fee revenue has mitigated the project impacts and otherwise benefited the affected community. d. Affirm that no new fees are to be negotiated or created without consultation with the current Supervisor serving in the district where the land development project is located. d.e. Affirm that fees developed for Countywide use will be administered by the full Board of Supervisors. These fees will be assigned and aministered to a particular County department. 4. Accept the compendium of current special revenue funds for FY 2009/10 and pursue opportunities to secure new mitigation and community benefit fees, where appropriate. 5. Amend the County Budget Policy, adopted in November 2006, to include the following new policy: “Each February, Contra Costa County shall prepare and make a formal budget report to the Board’s Finance Committee detailing earned revenues and expenditures for all mitigation and community benefit fees, trust and special revenue funds, and Board-established earmark fundsspecial Board appropriations during the prior fiscal year. The report shall identify amounts that were diverted from General- Purpose revenue in order to satisfy an special Board appropriation earmark or other special revenue program. The Finance Committee shall review prior-year expenditures for consistency with the approved purpose of the fees, funds or earmarksspecial Board appropriations, and will forward recommendations for the subsequent budget year to the Board of Supervisors for consideration in the annual budget process. Contra Costa County shall distribute updates to the Board-Administered Special Revenue Reference Book annually.”