HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 96-092 - Agreeing to Preparation of a Joint Agency Study & Authorize Execution of a Personal Services Agreement with the Firm of Crawford, Multari & Starr • ' • � /
Rcsolution No. 9G-92
A RI?SOLU"1'ION O[�"I'III� CI'I'l' COUNCIL OI� TIII; CI"I'Y O1� K[�,UDING
AGIZLLING TO I'KLPARA7'ION O1� A JOINT AG[�NC�' STUUY ANU
AU"1'[[OItl"L[N(; 1?hl?CU'TION O1� A I'L;ItSONAL SL;IZVICI;S AGIZI�,EMLN1'
�'4'ITI I 'I'lll� I�IIZM OI� CIZAWI�OItU, MUL'I'AI�ZI & S1'AIZK
�'4'IIP�IZI�AS, thc Cit}� Council of tl�c City of Red�in�, and 13oarcl ot� Supervisors of the
Cowlty o1�Shasta have mutually a�rcecl to cotnmenec a joiiit-a�eucy sludy oi�costs ior set�viccs, tax
ezchan�c a�rcrn�rnt�. annczati��n issucs, ancl scrviccs altcrnativcs; and
�1'111�:R1�.:��, tl�� �'il�� C�uuncil an�l tl�� 13��arcl uf�u��crvisc�rs I��ivc �ils�� mut�i�illy a�rced lhat
it ���oul�3 bc appru��riatc. in (h� cc�ursc �>I���r���tu�in� thc atorctncnlionc�l stuciv. tc� conUact �vi(l� lhc
consultin� Grni u��(.�rin�lor�. �lultari cS�: �tarr tc> pru��icic an assrssn�cnl c�l�tl�c fiscal imJ��icts t<� ll��c
Count�' of Shasta �u�c1 th� Cit�� uf IZc�lclin� resultin� from annczatiuns tu tl�c Citv ��f IZcci�lii��; �incl
VVIIL;KL;AS, lhc City Council alsi� a�,rcccl that it woulcl hc appr�priatr lor lhc Cily oi�
Redding to fund a proportional sharc of�tllc custs lor thc work to bc �ionc by Crawlorci, Mtiltari ��.
Starr,
13L; I'I' ItL,SOLVCU bv tl�c City Council of the City of IZcciclin�;, that:
1. �l�hc Cit}' C�uncil clocs hercby authurirc c�cculion uC�i I'crsonal Scrviccs A�,rccmcnt
���ith Cra�vford, Multari � Starr for prc��aration of a study pursuant tu thc aUachcd
Scopc of�Work in a total not-to-excec�l amount of$ 13,700.
2. "I�he Cit}� Council ducs hercbv a�,ree t�� l�und a prop��rtional sh�u�e of�the total contrac�
costs, said sharc not to c�:cced $ 5,350.
I IICRI?[3Y CL1Z'I'IFY th�it thc lorr�;oin� resc�luti��n �vas intro�lucccl, rcn�l ancl acioptc� at
a re�;ular mectin� of the City Cuuncil on thc7�i, �lay of M���Y , 199G bv the (i�lluwin�; votc:
A�'CS: COUNCILMLMI3I:R: Y. Anderson, K. �i�ders�n , Kelioe , Murray an� hl�•George
NOES: COUNCILMF:Ml3LR: None
AI3SEN'1�: COUNCILMLMI3LR: None
AI3STAIN: COUNCILMEMI3I�R: None
' �.
I)nV U .. cG'I���. Ma �r
I . �����
n�l��I�I��.��1 :� I�OR��1 nl"Ij�OVI�U:
/
N _�����1�_�-: _- _�- - - --
CONNII�: � �IZOI I��tn ` � . Cit�� Clcrk ��'. I,l�:ON.�11ZU WIN �� I�:. ('it�� i�tt�,rnc��
- • �
r:,Xn,t��t a
SCOPE OF WORK
tor Consultant Preparation of Elcmcnts of
County of Shasta/City of Redding Study re
Costs for Services/Tax Exchange Agreements/Annexation Issues/Services Alternatives
Tasks 1 & 2. Initial meetings; setting goals and parameters of analysis; review baseline
assumptions.
Thc consultant, hercaller CMS, will meet with staff of the County and Cily lo discuss the expected
products and outcomes from the study, It is important that all parties have a common understanding
of these items. CMS will provide advice as to the appropriate level of detail and types of analyses
that would most likely be usefiil.
CMS will also provide a list of baseline assumptions and data sources which will be used in the
analysis. CMS will review these assumptions with County and City staff to ensure that both parties
find them reasonable/acceptable from starting points. In cases where there may be disagreements
about the proper assumptions, CMS will collectively spell out a range of options that will be
assessed in the study for comparison purposes.
County staff will provide CMS with a copy of the County's most recent adopted budget prior to this
meeting. T11e various meetings described above will be conducted in one day for efficiency.
Tot�l Task Cost: $1,800 County Cost: $900 City Cost: $900
Task 3. Complete fiscal impact model for City of Redding for use for different classes of land
uses (residential, commercial, industrial and others as may be appropriate).
Total Task Cost: No charge; part of City of Redding General Plan Update
Taslc 4. Prep�re spreadsheet model for assessing impacts on County.
CMS will then prepare a simple spreadsheet model for assessing fiscal impacts on the County for
the different classes of land uses as noted above. The model will focus on impacts on the General
Fund operating budget, but can be expanded to include special fiinds or enterprise funds, as relevant.
The following summarizes the overall approach:
Tlie first step will be to estimate which cost categories in the County budget (or audited financial
statements) are fairly attributed to all persons or business in the County, including cities, versus
those that are primarily focused on persons or businesses in the unincorporated territory. For
example,public assistance and court costs are tied to the total County population,so that new growth
in the City will have the same impact on the County as unincorporated area growth. On the other
hand, residents or business in unincorporated territory will increase costs to the County for services
like f re and sheriff more than like development in the City.
. • �
�
Scope of Work Page 2
Next, CMS will need to estimate how these costs are distributed among different classes of land
u�cs: at l�atit resi�iential, commcrcial ancl industrial (more detailcci breakdowns are possible if dala
is available; experience suggests, however, that the marginal costs of these refinements are not
always worth the increased costs in time, money and complexity for the benefits they bring.
Therefore, CMS will work with the County to ascertain the most useful land use categories for the
analysis). If there are special cases involving public uses, they can be looked at as well.
Using these"splits",CMS can assign costs to new development in an annexation area(that is,within
the City)by land use category. CMS can then estimate costs on a per capita basis for new residential
and on a per employee basis for on-residential land uses.
These "multipliers" then are used to estimate costs to the County for different sizes and types of
development.
On the revenue side, CMS will do similar splits for certain general categories of revenues as well
as the actual formulas for fiinding sources such as property tax, etc. Depending on the location,
CMS will need to make assumptions about whether or not sales tax and TOT would go to the County
(prior to any possible sharing agreement that might affect these sources) from development in the
City. CMS usually assumes as a starting point that none of these inonies will accrue to the County
from development within city limits. Several categories of revenues, such as certain
intergovernmental transfers, will be linked to overall population growth.
CMS can run different scenarios, comparing costs and revenues, based on size and type of growth.
If ineaningful and significant, location may be an important variable, too (for example, if possible
annexations are in different TRAs).
Total Task Cost: $3,000 County Cost: $3,000 City Cost: $0
Task 5. Preliminary results.
Based on the County's spreadsheet model and the City's fiscal model, CMS will estimate fiscal
impacts for annexations of vacant land that will be developed into different land use types. It is
usefiil to present the results on a per unit basis for residential and on a per square foot basis for
commercial or industrial. These can then be used to estimate total costs for different specific
annexation proposals that may be used as examples in the negotiations.
CMS will test different property tax splits and will highlight the point at which the County "breaks
even"(if it does), and then how the City fares under that particular property tax sharing arrangement.
CMS will look at individual annexation areas or projects and also cumulative effects on the extent
annexation areas and likely development are known or can be reasonably predicted.
CMS will summarize these results in a paper and distribute it to the various parties for review. CMS
will then meet wit11 t11e County and City representatives to discuss the findings, accept comments,
and make adjustments to the analysis as a�propriate. Usually CMS ends up with additional model
"runs" based on different assumptions to test the "sensitivity" of the results of the assumptions.
, � • �
. ,. �
Scope of Work Page 3
,
If feasible, CMS will have the models available on a computer terminal at tlie meeting and to allow
thc �liffer�nt partics to 5u�bcst diffcrcnt scenarios of interest to facilitatc thc discussion.
Total Task Cost: $3,600 County Cost: $1,800 City Cost: $1,800
Task 6. Revised report.
Based on the discussions in Task 5 above, CMS will revise t�he paper as necessary. "l�his report
would then be the technical basis and the common set of assumptions on which the County and the
City would base firture negotiations. Tf no significant revisions necessary, there will be no charge
for this task.
Total Task Cost: $1,000 County Cost: $500 City Cost: $500
Task 7. Worksliop with County and City.
CMS will conduct a combined workshop with the Board of Supervisors and the City Council and
their respective staff to present an overview of the finished product and its potential uses and
applications. If desired, CMS would also attend County/City staff ineetings to assist with the
negotiations.
Total Task Cost: $2,500* County Cost: $1,250 City Cost: $1,250
(*Assumes one combined meeting; CMS would be also reimbursed for travel and any
presentation materials requested for the meeting.)
Total Rudget:
Total of T�sks: $11,900 County Cost: $7,450* City Cost: $4,450**
Contingency : 1,800 900 900
Total $13,658 $8,350 $5,350
* County's share assumes County will cover cost for Task 4 because the product from this task
will be used solely by the County.
** City's share does not reflect their additional cost for Task 3 services, which are to be paid
out of their General Plan update.
********
4/26/96jh