OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Santa Rosa City Council Regular Meeting - January 30, 2024

City Council — Tuesday, January 30, 2024
BodySanta Rosa, California
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, January 30, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
1:51

Good afternoon.

1:52

I'd like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to commence translation of the meeting.

1:58

For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available, and members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar.

2:12

It looks like a globe.

20:00

So before we dive into the particulars of the study, I just wanted to give a brief description on the two different fee types that really affect development proposals.

20:07

The first is a service fee.

20:08

That's the focus of the conversation today.

20:10

It's also referred to as a user fee often or miscellaneous fees.

20:14

Those really go into the staff costs that are associated with delivering specific services out of the department.

20:19

In economic planning and economic development, the core building functions and planning functions are included in this.

20:25

So we have planning review, we have permit processing, we have building and engineering plan review and inspection.

20:30

The vast majority of those hours for those services do come out of planning and economic development.

20:35

I believe it's also important to note that development services is handled citywide.

20:39

There are quite a few departments and individuals in transportation and public works, water, fire, and parking that actually assist with development related services.

20:50

Those hours are incorporated in this study as well.

20:53

The other fee type that we see on the development side are what are referred to as impact fees.

20:58

Impact fees are getting a lot of conversation at the state level right now.

21:01

Impact fees are very different.

21:03

That is a one-time fee that a development pays for its proportionate fair share impact on public infrastructure.

21:08

So that fee is collected and it goes into programming parks, streets, other public infrastructure components to provide service to that development long term.

21:18

A lot of conversations about waivers and deferrals at the state level.

21:22

Assembly bill number 602 addresses the nexus fee studies associated with impact fees and how those are prepared.

21:28

Very important to note these fees are not part of that.

21:31

So this is not covered under Assembly Bill No.

21:35

We do a fee study to show the relationship between the fee and the service provided, but it's not part of that.

21:42

Just quickly the background on our service fees.

21:46

Service fees, and you'll hear a lot of the conversation during the presentation today about cost recovery levels.

21:51

So typically what we start with is understanding how many staff hours that it takes to provide a service and the cost associated with that.

21:58

And that number determines 100% cost recovery for that service.

22:02

Where the fees are set may be at 100% or they may be less.

22:06

And we'll talk a bit about what subsidies look like.

22:08

In 2004, the City Council approved financial strategies that focus development related fees on 100% cost recovery, and the study you'll see today will start with 100% cost recovery across the board.

22:20

It's been some time since we did a massive overhaul of our fees.

22:24

The most recent study was completed in 2013 with an adoption in 2014.

22:29

We also did some minor adjustments in 2017, which addressed a handful of fees.

22:34

Also important to note at this point, the current analysis is based on fiscal year 2022 and 2023 budgeted numbers and fees charged at the beginning of the study.

22:43

It typically takes uh six months to a year to prepare these studies, and a lot of the information you'll see today is based on when that exercise started.

22:51

Before we we dive into the specifics of the study, I think it's really important to discuss the relationship between revenue, expenditures, and permits in planning and economic development.

23:02

As I mentioned, there are quite a few departments that support it.

23:04

The vast majority of the hours and development services come out of planning and academic development.

23:09

The chart you see before you now really shows our permit totals.

23:12

Those are the vertical bars, and it breaks it down between building engineering and planning.

23:17

Building is the vast majority of our permitting totals.

23:19

It shows the expenditures in red, and the expenditures only focus on development services.

23:25

So they exclude any cost for economic development and code enforcement.

23:29

And then shows the relationship with our revenue.

23:31

And typically, any time you look at development services over a 10-year period, you'll see a general increase, you'll see a plateau, and then you'll see some form of a decrease.

23:39

And that's just how development cycles work.

23:42

We've seen some interesting anomalies in Santa Rosa during this time frame.

23:46

In 2015 and 16, we're still coming back from the recession of 2009.

23:51

Developments moving forward at a slower pace.

23:53

It really starts growing in future years, and the staffing levels start to recover.

23:57

So our expenditures start to increase.

24:31

So what you see, and this is really the reason we perform the study is we see a growth in expenditures, and the peaks and the growth can be from getting additional staff.

24:40

Uh, the reductions are usually a result of expenditures on the professional services side being less than the previous year.

24:47

But you see a general trend of growing upward.

24:49

That will flatten as permits slow, but the revenue doesn't track with that as well.

24:55

Um, and one of the challenges with that is the that the length it takes to do a fee study, and the fee is not keeping up with the costs.

25:03

So that is the main reason as to why we're tackling this problem today.

25:07

When we look at this at a division by division, we see some interesting trends on the building side.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Engagement█████████████████17%
Procedural████████████████16%
Wildfire Management█████████9%
Economic Development███████7%
Fiscal Sustainability███████7%
Affordable Housing███████7%
Violence Prevention███████7%
Public Safety███████7%
Intergovernmental Relations█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

Santa Rosa City Council Regular Meeting - January 30, 2024

The Santa Rosa City Council met on January 30, 2024, in a combined closed session (12:30 PM), study session (2:00 PM), and regular meeting (starting at 4:00 PM). The council approved consent items, adopted the 2024 Federal Legislative Platform, accepted the third annual Community Wildfire Protection Plan report, and approved bond issuance for Orchard Commons. Public comments featured repeated calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, as well as support for violence prevention and other local issues.

Consent Calendar

  • 13.1 – Approved a lease agreement with Skikos Properties, LLC for a temporary police substation at 1215 Sebastopol Road. (Resolution RES-2024-014)
  • 13.2 – Approved purchase of one West-Mark 3-axle potable water tank truck for $243,149.02 via Sourcewell cooperative. (Resolution RES-2024-015)
  • 13.3 – Approved a professional services agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for legal representation in Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa, not to exceed $725,000, with retroactive effective date of October 25, 2023, and authorized a $725,000 budget amendment from unassigned General Fund reserves. (Resolution RES-2024-016)
  • 13.4 – Adopted on second reading an ordinance increasing the Mayor's monthly salary from $2,200 to $2,220, retroactive to December 14, 2022, to correct a clerical error. (Ordinance ORD-2024-001)

All consent items passed unanimously (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Study Session 4.1 (Development Fee Study): Calum Weeks, Policy Director of Generation Housing, expressed full support for the cost recovery measures, stating that resourcing departments is essential for pro-housing policies.
  • Study Session 4.2 (Violence Prevention Partnership): Duane DeWitt spoke in support of the program, emphasizing the need for a community advisory committee that includes individuals with street experience.
  • Non-Agenda Matters (Item 14 & 18): At least 12 speakers addressed the council. The majority urged adoption of a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, citing humanitarian concerns and the impact on local Palestinian residents. Several speakers, including Irene Hodes (Jewish Community Relations Council) and Linda Elyad, asked the council not to bring forward a ceasefire resolution, arguing it is not a local issue and could be divisive. James Duncan raised the urgency of the Jennings Avenue rail crossing deadline (March 1, 2024) and requested a staff report.
  • Item 13.1 (Police Substation Lease): Duane DeWitt spoke in support, noting the importance of a visible police presence in Roseland and suggesting community engagement.
  • Item 16.1 (Orchard Commons Bonds): Duane DeWitt spoke in support, stating the housing advocacy group supports the project.
  • Item 15.3 (Wildfire Protection Plan): Duane DeWitt and Thomas Els spoke in support of using grazing for vegetation management and asked that Roseland be included.

Discussion Items

  • 4.1 Draft Development Related Cost of Service Fee Study: Staff (Gabe Osburn, Cindy Sconce) presented the study, showing a 23% discrepancy between costs and current fees. Council members discussed subsidies for affordable housing, childcare, grocery stores, and fee deferrals. Staff was directed to develop an affordable housing subsidy program and bring the fee schedule back for adoption in March.
  • 4.2 Violence Prevention Partnership Implementation Plan: Program Manager Danielle Garduno and Community Outreach Specialist Rogelio Roman presented Year 1 strategies, including a Safe Campus Intervention Program, hospital-based crisis response, tattoo removal restart, and workforce development. Council discussed staffing needs (estimated $400,000/year for two to three additional community outreach specialists) and potential funding sources.
  • 15.1 2024 Federal Legislative Platform: Lobbyists from MMO Partners highlighted FY2023 federal funding successes (e.g., $7M SAFER grant, $10M transit grant) and outlined priorities for wildfire mitigation, transportation, water resilience, housing, and public safety. Council questions focused on preparing projects for funding. The platform was adopted 5-0-2 (Councilmembers MacDonald and Okrepkie recused due to fire-related conflicts).
  • 15.3 Third Annual Report of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan: Fire Marshal Paul Lowenthal presented accomplishments including GIS tracking, vegetation management, public education, and the new vegetation management ordinance. The report was accepted 6-0-1 (Councilmember C. Rogers absent).
  • 16.1 TEFRA Public Hearing for Orchard Commons Bonds: The council held a public hearing and approved the issuance of up to $20 million in tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds for the 46-unit affordable housing project (completed January 2023) to convert construction financing to permanent financing. Approved 6-0-1 (C. Rogers absent).

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Calendar approvals (7-0) – Lease, water truck, legal services agreement, and salary correction.
  • Direction to staff on Development Fee Study: Develop a subsidy program for affordable housing and other council priorities; bring fee schedule back for adoption in March.
  • Direction to staff on Violence Prevention Partnership: Continue building programs; explore additional staffing and potential ballot measure support.
  • Adoption of 2024 Federal Legislative Platform (5-0-2) – Resolution RES-2024-017.
  • Acceptance of Community Wildfire Protection Plan third annual report (6-0-1) – Motion carried.
  • Approval of bond issuance for Orchard Commons (6-0-1) – Resolution RES-2024-018.
  • Item 15.2 (2024 State Legislative Platform) was continued to the next regular meeting.
  • Council appointments: Council Member Fleming appointed to Zero Waste Sonoma, with Renae Gundy as alternate (approved 7-0).

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon. I'd like to ask the interpreter currently on the Spanish channel to commence translation of the meeting. For those just joining the meeting, live translation in Spanish is available, and members of the public or staff wishing to listen in Spanish can join the Spanish channel by clicking on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar. It looks like a globe. So before we dive into the particulars of the study, I just wanted to give a brief description on the two different fee types that really affect development proposals. The first is a service fee. That's the focus of the conversation today. It's also referred to as a user fee often or miscellaneous fees. Those really go into the staff costs that are associated with delivering specific services out of the department. In economic planning and economic development, the core building functions and planning functions are included in this. So we have planning review, we have permit processing, we have building and engineering plan review and inspection. The vast majority of those hours for those services do come out of planning and economic development. I believe it's also important to note that development services is handled citywide. There are quite a few departments and individuals in transportation and public works, water, fire, and parking that actually assist with development related services. Those hours are incorporated in this study as well. The other fee type that we see on the development side are what are referred to as impact fees. Impact fees are getting a lot of conversation at the state level right now. Impact fees are very different. That is a one-time fee that a development pays for its proportionate fair share impact on public infrastructure. So that fee is collected and it goes into programming parks, streets, other public infrastructure components to provide service to that development long term. A lot of conversations about waivers and deferrals at the state level. Assembly bill number 602 addresses the nexus fee studies associated with impact fees and how those are prepared. Very important to note these fees are not part of that. So this is not covered under Assembly Bill No. We do a fee study to show the relationship between the fee and the service provided, but it's not part of that. Just quickly the background on our service fees. Service fees, and you'll hear a lot of the conversation during the presentation today about cost recovery levels. So typically what we start with is understanding how many staff hours that it takes to provide a service and the cost associated with that. And that number determines 100% cost recovery for that service. Where the fees are set may be at 100% or they may be less. And we'll talk a bit about what subsidies look like. In 2004, the City Council approved financial strategies that focus development related fees on 100% cost recovery, and the study you'll see today will start with 100% cost recovery across the board. It's been some time since we did a massive overhaul of our fees. The most recent study was completed in 2013 with an adoption in 2014. We also did some minor adjustments in 2017, which addressed a handful of fees. Also important to note at this point, the current analysis is based on fiscal year 2022 and 2023 budgeted numbers and fees charged at the beginning of the study. It typically takes uh six months to a year to prepare these studies, and a lot of the information you'll see today is based on when that exercise started. Before we we dive into the specifics of the study, I think it's really important to discuss the relationship between revenue, expenditures, and permits in planning and economic development. As I mentioned, there are quite a few departments that support it. The vast majority of the hours and development services come out of planning and academic development. The chart you see before you now really shows our permit totals. Those are the vertical bars, and it breaks it down between building engineering and planning. Building is the vast majority of our permitting totals. It shows the expenditures in red, and the expenditures only focus on development services. So they exclude any cost for economic development and code enforcement. And then shows the relationship with our revenue. And typically, any time you look at development services over a 10-year period, you'll see a general increase, you'll see a plateau, and then you'll see some form of a decrease. And that's just how development cycles work. We've seen some interesting anomalies in Santa Rosa during this time frame. In 2015 and 16, we're still coming back from the recession of 2009.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com