05-10-2011 CC RPT 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Matinita • Page 2 On June 3, 2008, Marinita Development sent a letter of protest and requested that the City withdraw the condition of approval requiring the TUMF payment because the payment of TUMF and requirement for construction of the improvements on Van Buren Boulevard constituted a double exaction. On August 6, 2008, the request was denied by City staff. Since that time, representatives from the City, Western Riverside Council of Governments ( WRCOG) and Marinita Development have met in an attempt to resolve the request without success. The TUMF Administrative Plan and Chapter 16.68 of the Riverside Municipal Code which imposes TUMF provides for appeals that cannot be resolved at staff level be heard by the City Council upon the request of the appellant. The initial protest of the TUMF assessment centered on two issues: 1) the City's requirement that the developer build the improvements on Van Buren Boulevard and pay the TUMF assessment amounted to an unconstitutional double exaction; and 2) the City's credit procedure does not remedy the unconstitutional double exaction. The City Attorney's Office concluded that the Conditions of Approval did not impose an illegal double exaction and since Marinita Development made a deliberate decision not to comply with the credit /reimbursement process they could not take advantage of the process after the fact. On September 17, 2008, City, WRCOG and Marinita Development representatives met to attempt to resolve the protest. Marinita's request was again denied at the meeting. Subsequently, on September 29, 2008, Marinita Development formally appealed the denial of the TUMF credit. The appeal indicated that the basis of the appeal would be provided as soon as practicable. This information has not yet been received by the City. Previously, the appeal by Marinita Development focused on the requirements of WRCOG and State law, which is not within the control of the City of Riverside. The requirements state that all work subject to the credit /reimbursement process must be competitively bid and prevailing wages paid. Marinita failed to fulfill either of these requirements. As a result, Marinita Development's concerns should be directed to the governing bodies that can properly address their concerns. Therefore, staff recommends that this appeal be denied. The decision by the City Council is final from the appellant's position as the appellant has no right of appeal to WRCOG under the Administrative Plan. However, in accordance with the WRCOG Administrative Plan, the City Council's final decision will be forwarded to the WRCOG Executive Committee for review and concurrence. If the Executive Committee disagrees with the decision of the City Council, the WRCOG Executive Committee shall determine a proper course of action and notify the jurisdiction of its findings. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City in denying the appeal by Marinita Development. Prepared by: Siobhan Foster, Public Works Director Certified as to availability of funds: Paul C. Sundeen, Assistant City Manager /CFO /Treasurer Approved by: Deanna Lorson, Assistant City Manager for Bradley J. Hudson, City Manager Approved as to form: Gregory P. Priamos, City Attorney 16 -2