Town of Olympic ValleyNegotiation 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

Negotiating Team

Vito Palermo (Finance)Robert Van Nort (City Government)Fred Ilfeld (IOV Chairman)Michael Colantuono (Legal)

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

Process

• The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Act) establishes procedures for city incorporations

LAFCO

Olympic Valley

Proponents

Placer County

Establish long term fiscal viability Determine revenue neutrality impacts and mitigation

1. Preparation of Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA)2. Create Revenue Neutrality Agreement3. LAFCO Hearing and Decision4. 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 October-November.

• 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 TaxFiscal Years 2008-2013

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

CollectionsTahoe 8,274,575 8,899,781 10,137,704 9,828,896 11,290,490 Non-Tahoe 391,277 358,477 366,374 378,495 390,689 Total 8,665,852 9,258,258 10,504,078 10,207,391 11,681,179

Squaw Valley 2,947,748 2,754,750 3,137,992 2,931,897 3,187,121 SV % 34.0% 29.8% 29.9% 28.7% 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