Over the years, the University Community Planning Group (UCPG) has been consistently and repeatedly told by the city that South University City is not in the FBA defined Area of Benefit, and thus, projects like a new fire station replacing the one eliminated and moved to Eastgate Mall, improvements to Swanson Pool at Standley Park, and a renovation of the library on Governor Drive could not be added to or funded by the FBA.
As chair of the UCPG for the last three years, I believe the review of the North University City Public Facilities Financing Plan and Facilities Benefit Assessment (FBA) continues to be an intrinsic and complex component of the duties of the UCPG Executive Committee and community. Two of the most important elements of the FBA are the current assessments and the cost estimates for the specified infra-structure improvements.
While it is factual that the FBA is an account funded by developer fees and used to pay for community projects, it is also factual that the FBA provides funding for public facilities projects that serve a designated area, also known as the Area of Benefit. The dollar amount of assessments is based on the collective cost of each public facility, and is equitably distributed over the Area of Benefit in the North University City community planning area.
The FBA is applied to undeveloped residential and non-residential property. The location and extent of the Area of Benefit is determined by referencing the County Assessor parcel maps, current tentative subdivision maps, and from information supplied by affected property owners.
The maps, plats and summary of the assessment roll all define the Area of Benefit. When the City Council established the FBA in 1980, the Area of Benefit never included South University City.
The boundary of the University Community Plan is different than the defined Area of Benefit. The Area of Benefit perimeter that separates North University City from South University City lies somewhere in the middle of Rose Canyon, south of the railroad tracks.
There are two infrastructure components that have been a part of the University Community Plan for more than 40 years, the Regents Road Bridge and the Genesee Avenue Widening.
According to the Fiscal Year 2007 FBA adopted by the City Council in May 2006, both of these projects are still a part of the FBA Transportation Phasing Plan.
To date, the construction costs of the Regents Road Bridge spanning the AT&SF railroad and a portion of the Rose Canyon floodplain have been a part of the FBA because it is in the Area of Benefit. The 100 feet north of Lahitte Court to the south abutment of the Regents Road Bridge and the 100 feet north of Lahitte Court to Governor Drive have consistently been identified in the FBA as “unidentified” presumed city funding and Transnet funding because these segments are not part of the Area of Benefit which the FBA is responsible for funding. These costs have always been a city obligation. The distribution of costs has consistently been two-thirds FBA obligation and one-third city obligation.
Currently the FBA is being updated for the Fiscal Year 2009 and the UCPG is reviewing the document. In the process, $4,850,000 of costs has been proposed to be shifted to being funded by FBA fees. The proposed shifts of the funding source are for costs that are not in the Area of Benefit.
In addition to the proposed shifted costs, Council decisions regarding the Regents Road Bridge added $4 million for Rose Canyon enhancements and bicycle improvements, roadway changes of $5 million and $1.5 million for right-of-way acquisition. Roadway improvements to SR-52 interchanges are not within the Area of Benefit for the North University City FBA.
Given the above facts, as a resident and community leader I was quite disappointed to read Councilman Scott Peters’ remark in your Jan. 31, 2008 Letters to the Editor, “It should come as a surprise to no one in University City that FBA money will be used to pay for the project, for that is exactly the kind of community benefit the FBA was established to fund. It is inaccurate to refer to this as raiding a ‘honey pot.'”
Spending time discussing and reaching community consensus is the collective goal of the UCPG. Recognizing and upholding fiscal expenditure obligations is essential to maintaining the integrity of the FBA. The city originally promised the UC community to fund with state-sponsored Transnet fees segments of certain FBA projects. Can the UC community rely on the word of the city? This is the issue, city accountability, reliability and consistency. Changing city policy and procedure may be the prerogative of the current City Council, but the UCPG has a responsibility to the entire community to ask if shifting any fiscal FBA planned obligation is legal or judicious.
” Linda N. Colley is the chair of the University Community Planning Group.