HomeMy Public PortalAboutOpen Space Committee (13) Town of Truckee
Open Space Committee Agenda
January 5, 2004 5:30pm
1. Call to order and introductions
2. Discussion — Review of a variety of revenue raising options for Open
Space acquisition and maintenance
3. Next steps—further OS definition discussion, review of revenue
options, polling efforts, or?
4. Adjourn — Next meeting January 5, 2004
Truckee Open Space Committee
Possible Funding Sources
Mello Roos District: There are a variety of property based assessments that
could be considered that would be available for open space and maintenance.
There would be a 2/3s vote requirement and there may be "proportionality"
requirements that are mandated. These funds can also be used for maintenance
and within limitations those determinations can be made by Council action vs.
vote of the people. The Town Attorney notes that invoking the Town's Charter
authority may preclude the proportionality requirement If a flat dollar amount per
parcel is allowed, then $100 per parcel would generate approximately $1.3
million (13,000+parcels currently).
Sales tax increase: recent state law allows cities to ask voters to approve up to
a % cent sales tax increase on taxable sales that occur within the Town's
jurisdiction. A' cent sales tax would currently generate approximately $750,000
per year. Sales taxes vary from year to year based upon the local economic
climate. Truckee currently already has an added '/ cent sales tax established by
the voters for road maintenance.
An offshoot of this could be a voluntary sales tax collected by merchants as a
donation for open space. If there is significant interest in this option, additional
research into the administration of this would be required.
TOT increase: the transient occupancy tax (TOT) is a tax on temporary
occupancy of hotel, motel and other similar facilities. The Town currently has a
10% TOT rate. A 2% increase would generate approximately $120,000 per year.
This tax is also subject to the ups and downs of the local hotel economy.
Developer impact fee: This is a fee that the Town currently charges when a new
housing unit or commercial/industrial building permit is issued. The rationale
behind the fee is that new development should pay for expanded infrastructure
that will be required to be built because of the growth impacts of the new
development. The current fee is approximately $1,700 per unit and the Town is
considering possible significant increases for other infrastructure needs. Each
$100 per unit would generate about$50,000. This income would vary with the
local construction economy. This money cannot be used for ongoing
maintenance. This revenue source would not require a vote of the people to
enact. Further legal research would be required prior to pursuing this alternative.
Real Property Transfer tax: This is a tax that is placed upon the sale of each
property each time that they are sold. Typically the seller pays this tax. The
current Town-wide tax rate is $.55 per$1,000 that comes to the Town (another
$.55 per$1,000 goes to the County). Each $.10 would generate about $45,000.
This revenue source would not require a vote of the people to enact.
Business license tax: If imposed for an amount greater than the cost of
collecting the fee, this tax also must have voter approval. There are a variety of
ways that the amount of the tax can be calculated, the most common of which is
on a gross receipts basis. Based upon the amount the Committee wants to
collect, staff can provide alternate calculation methodologies.
Redevelopment Agency funds: This is an unlikely source of funds unless it is
for a specific project like a downtown plaza. Agency funds must be spent within
the project area— not Town wide. Their most likely use would be as matching
money used with private dollars in a specific development project that
accomplishes a redevelopment purpose.
Other options requiring further research: Utility users taxes, admissions taxes
(i.e. skiing, golfing, ski/bike rentals, etc.) or fees (i.e. concerts in the park), grants,
transfer of development rights, foundation grants, donations, etc.
Note: the Town Attorney has advised that the above revenues could generally be
used to acquire lands outside of the Town boundaries if specific findings of Town
benefit can be made. Consideration of this option might be discussed in relation
to the ability to obtain a favorable public vote on the issue.
Open Space Committee
Minutes
December 1, 2003
Roll Call — Richard Anderson, Florence Cox, Pat Davison, John Eaton, Jeffery
Hill, Beth Ingalls, Perry Norris, Stephanie Oliveri, Ted Owens, Steve Randall,
Lynn Saunders, Hugh Williams, Steve Wright, Tony Lashbrook.
Review of General Plan Open Space discussions —Town Lashbrook reviewed
the recent outcome of a joint Planning Commission/Town Council workshop held
to discuss current GP policies and develop suggested modifications for the
updated General Plan. General discussion was held.
The Committee then began a discussion on the possible definition(s) of Open
Space that might be used in the future in discussions with a professional polling
firm. Four different types of Open Space categorization were considered —
specific, somewhat general,very general and open ended.
The specific areas where the Committee members felt that there would be value
in asking voters their preferences were:
- Hiking/biking trails
- OHV trails
- Downtown plaza/neighborhood gathering place
- Ball fields
- Wildlife corridors / habitat
- View sheds
- Riparian areas
- All recreation
- Cultural resources
- River corridors
- Large tracts of forest land
- Flood plains
It was noted that in all instances, funding for maintenance would be a mandatory
component of any funding source.
The very general category had only two designations:
- Developed
- Undeveloped
These would need further definition —other suggestions were recreational and
pristine.
The third category was suggested from an Aspen polling effort that asked voters
to identify "touchstone places" in their community thus allowing the committee to
review suggestions from the poll rather than restricting those polled to the lists
compiled by the committee.
The somewhat general concept suggested that the community be polled on a
broad range of categories such as:
- Natural recreational lands &trails
- Habitat and lands with high natural resource values
- plazas & gathering places
- cultural resources
- public access and recreation lands
- scenic lands and view sheds
Committee members felt that providing these 4 categories to the polling
professional would be sufficient to allow further dialogue of the group to refine the
actual poll.
Committee members suggested that another poll question should ask the
question of who should administer the funds gathered for OS purposes—the
Town, the Recreation District, a new government entity (OS District), an advisory
committee to the Council, etc.
The next meeting on January 6th will focus on a review of the possible funding
sources to raise OS money and a discussion on how much money should be
raised on an annual basis both for acquisition and maintenance. It was then`felt
that it would be appropriate to bring in a pollster to aide in the creation of a poll.