Transcript Document

Town of Olympic Valley
Negotiation Process
April 1, 2014
Incorporation Purpose
To preserve and protect the spirit of our community by shifting the decision
making from the county to the local level, by the people who live here, as a
means of greater self-determination
Specifically:
• Improve local services through local management
• More local control over land use, growth, planning policy
• Create a politically accountable governing body in a limited geographic area
Negotiation Team
IOV Board of Directors
Collectively the team has:
•
•
•
•
Been apart of the community for several decades
Managed over $5B in fiscal budgets
More than 30 years city manager experience and 4 new
town incorporations
And is one of the leading experts in California local
government law
Negotiating Team
Vito Palermo (Finance)
Robert Van Nort (City Government)
Fred Ilfeld (IOV Chairman)
Michael Colantuono (Legal)
Process
• The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Act) establishes
procedures for city incorporations
Establish long term fiscal viability
LAFCO
Placer
County
1.
2.
3.
4.
Determine revenue neutrality
impacts and mitigation
Olympic
Valley
Proponents
Preparation of Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA)
Create Revenue Neutrality Agreement
LAFCO Hearing and Decision
Incorporation Election
Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA)
• LAFCO required by law to prepare CFA
• Gather Financial & Service Level data from all agencies serving proposed area of incorporation
• Analyze fiscal implications of proposed changes in services
• Town may choose between Full Service or Contract service model
• Establish base year revenue and costs (2012 – 2013)
• Calculate property tax transfer
• In proportion to the services transferred to new town
• Does not include revenue reserved by statute
• Develop multiyear (8 years) budget projections
• To determine long term feasibility
* IOV Estimate based on 2012-2013 data provided by Placer County
Revenue Neutrality Agreement
• The preliminary CFA determines the amount of the annual mitigation payment
• The negotiation process determines the terms and the duration of payments
• LAFCO has the power to dictate terms if parties (County & New Town) can’t agree
• The new city may have approximately the same revenue base to provide services that the county had prior
to incorporation
• Any proposal should result in a similar exchange of both revenue and responsibility for service delivery
among the county, the proposed town and other subject agencies
• Incorporations have generally resulted in terms designed to facilitate the new towns fiscal health
Timeline (Estimated)
• Responses to the CFA RFP are due April 7, 2014
• The CFA Consultant will be selected at the LAFCO May 12th meeting.
• The contract will be developed after the consultant is selected.
• The Consultant will start the process in June and, with County providing timely responses, possibly providing
an Administrative Draft in late September 2014.
• The issuance of the Administrative draft could be the starting point for the Revenue Negotiations in OctoberNovember.
• LAFCO Board, could conduct its initial review (Public) of the CFA at the December meeting, continuing the
matter until the January,2015 meeting. At that time, the Consultant would be required to provide responses
to the public, IOV and or County concerns in the Draft document.
• At the February or March 2015 LAFCO meeting LAFCO could place OV Incorporation on the ballot.
• The election would be held either in June and or a Special election. In either case, the effective date for
Incorporation could be either July 1, 2015 or more likely October 1, 2015.
Decisions impacting future of town
• Service Levels of new town
• Negotiated Revenue Mix
• Stability and Growth of Tax Base
• Property Tax and TOT taxes
Placer County Transient Occupancy Tax
Fiscal Years 2008-2013
Collections
Tahoe
Non-Tahoe
Total
Squaw Valley
SV %
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
8,274,575
391,277
8,665,852
8,899,781
358,477
9,258,258
10,137,704
366,374
10,504,078
2,947,748 2,754,750
34.0%
29.8%
3,137,992
29.9%
2011-12
9,828,896
378,495
10,207,391
2,931,897
28.7%
2012-13
11,290,490
390,689
11,681,179
3,187,121
27.3%
Required municipal services
• General Legislative functions
• Land use planning and control over land development
• Law enforcement
• Animal control
• Maintenance of public roads
* all services except for General legislative functions may be contracted to 3rd parties
Required County Services
• Special services (welfare, child protective services, etc.)
• Health services (medical care, mental health, public health)
• Criminal justice (courts, prosecution, jails, probation, etc.)
• Regional parks (in some cases)
• Elections and voters services
• General government (assessor, treasurer, recorder, tax collector, etc.)
More information
• IOV – www.incorporateolympicvalley.org
• LAFCO – www.calafco.org