City Holds the Line on CFD
September 13th, 2007
City Holds the Line on CFD
The Riverbank City Council chose to adhere to existing state law as it relates to school facility financing during a recent city council meeting. The proposed CFD, originally designed to be a joint powers agreement, (JPA) would have resulted in a $274.00 annual tax for the Riverbank Unified School District, a $250.00 annual tax for the Stanislaus County Consolidated Fire District, and $329.00 for city infrastructure and police services. The chambers were standing room only through the three hour discussion which included presentations from the City’s CFD consultant, Riverbank Unifi ed School District Superintendent Joe Galindo, various builders, developers, the Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) and the BIA. The debate once again centered on what a municipality can or cannot require as a condition of approval on new development. Senate Bill 50, the CA State law which sets limits on the amount of impact fees a school district can levy on development, was referred to through-out the discussion by the BIA and DPFG as the single source of justification in regards to mitigating the impacts of new development on school districts. The City’s attorney further validated the industry’s arguments by stating, “SB50 forbids them [the City] from imposing taxes for the schools through a CFD.” Chris Austin, Managing Principal for DPFG, also contended that money financed through a CFD would need to be credited back to the builder on statutory developer impact fees paid at builder permit. The Council made the appropriate decision in denying the school and fire district participation in the CFD, leaving in place a vehicle for financing city-specific services, which was the original intent of the all-too-common and somewhat convoluted CFD concept. Without the inclusion of schools and the Consolidated Fire District, the proposed CFD may now only include city specific police services and infrastructure. It’s important to mention that this industry victory was achieved through a collaboration of resources. Swift mobilization of the impacted parties along with a unified presentation of state law, good facts and sound data - allowed for a concise, convincing argument to a council seeking input from their constituents. Not enough can be said regarding the importance of this approach on policy concerns coming before a voting body. I would like to personally thank all of those who participated in this effort and more specifically, acknowledge the proven success of a standing partnership established with DPFG. Chris Aus-tin and Greg Angelo, (the BIA’s DPFG consultant team) have consistently provided sound professional testimony along with strong analytical data when called upon for services by either the association directly or it’s individual members.
Central California Builder Magazine -- July 2007
