Yorba Linda City Council schedules historic vote on a new General Plan, updating 1993 document

Tuesday's scheduled City Council vote on a revised General Plan to guide Yorba Linda's future development will be historic, since only two past councils have cast votes on such documents in the city's near 50-year history.

But the upcoming vote ranks third in importance behind the earlier balloting because the new plan is presented as an update of the second plan adopted in 1993, a document that had key changes from the city's original plan written in 1971.

The 1971 plan, which was so controversial it was placed on the ballot in a 1972 election, put the fledgling city on a clear course as a low-density residential community, after the 2,317 to 1,902 “yes” vote. Thereafter, successful council candidates ran as “low-density advocates.”

The 2016 plan doesn't trigger a Measure B public vote, since the plan incorporates no major modifications in the city's current land use documents. The substantial changes contained in the 1993 plan didn't require a public vote because Measure B wasn't adopted until 2006.

The “planning area” for the updated document includes all properties within the city limits and land in the city's “sphere of influence,” including the Fairlynn and Country Club county islands and the Cielo and Esperanza projects on county territory northeast of the city.

My Aug. 5 column noted the document's “build-out” residential numbers in terms of how many housing units could be added in each of the city's five residential zones, which range from low density (one unit per acre) to high density (four to 30 units per acre).

This column pictures a Yorba Linda 20 years into the future, through 2035, according to the extensive data compiled for some of the document's state-required categories by city-hired consultants.

Population will jump 10,752 persons – nearly 16 percent – from the current 67,637 to 78,389, while the housing stock will add 3,913 dwelling units – close to 18 percent – from the existing 21,958 to 25,871. No change is expected in the number of persons-per-household at 3.03.

Of the planning area's total 14,753 acres, 2,587 are currently vacant. Existing non-residential square footage is about 3.8 million, which could grow another 2 million square feet into 2035.

Of course, with more people, homes and commercial space, the infrastructure will deal with more traffic, wastewater and solid waste. An added 43,137 vehicle trips, 3 million gallons of wastewater and 60,000 pounds of solid waste will be generated daily.

While the county Sanitation District and Olinda landfill will easily manage the increases, future build-out “could result in a considerable increase” in pollutants, mostly from “mobile sources,” the plan notes.

Another significant jump will be in train traffic. Today's 60 freight and 27 passenger trains will increase to 99 freight and 42 passenger trains and “exposure to railroad traffic noise levels is considered a potentially significant impact.”  

Yorba Linda's reserve fund policy has changes

A couple of new wrinkles have been added to Yorba Linda's policy regarding funds held in reserve – cash that's been saved from several decades of spending fewer dollars than the number raised from taxes, fees and other income sources.

Currently, the city has close to $17.7 million in reserves, nearly 57 percent of the $31.2 million general fund budget. A city survey notes that's the ninth highest percentage in the county's 34 cities, and the only city with both a larger population and a larger reserve is Buena Park at 96 percent.

A written City Council policy has long stated that reserves should be 50 percent of each year's operating budget. That won't change under a revised policy adopted on a 4-1 vote at a recent council meeting, with Mark Schwing dissenting.

But two specific categories of reserves have been created, along with a potential for more spending whenever the level of reserves reaches more than 60 percent of a year's budget.

One category is an “emergency reserve,” which will be set each June 30 at 40 percent of the upcoming fiscal year's general fund budget. The other is an “economic contingency reserve,” which would be fixed at 10 percent of the budget.

The 40 percent reserve “would only be utilized in a time of emergency, which would be an extremely unusual and infrequent occurrence, such as a major natural disaster or a major unforeseen settlement,” Finance Director Scott Catlett told council members.

The 10 percent reserve “would only be accessible to address unforeseen sudden revenue loss that could not be balanced with other measures,” Catlett noted, adding the fund would allow “a measured and thoughtful reduction in expenditures” during an economic downturn.

Once the emergency or period of declining revenues ended, the city staff would be required to present a plan to council to replenish the fund levels over no more than a five-year period.

Catlett also noted: “In cases where the reserve balance exceeds 50 percent at any time, the policy would allow (council) to appropriate these excess reserves for one-time expenditures.”

But, he stated: “Any appropriation from reserves that causes the reserve balance to drop below 50 percent must be backfilled in the subsequent fiscal year, which absent revenue growth would mean a corresponding reduction in budgeted expenditures.”

Also, to avoid “accumulation of excess operating reserves,” Catlett noted the policy includes “a requirement that when reserves exceed 60 percent, staff would present...options for appropriate uses” of the excess funds to bring the balances below the 60 percent level.

“These uses would likely include deferred capital projects, vehicle or equipment purchases, contributions to special reserves, reductions to unfunded liabilities or other expenditures of a one-time nature,” he explained.

The policy also eliminates specific reserve levels for landscape district, library and golf course funds.

Checking candidates' campaign contributions not easy, but it is doable for Yorba Linda's residents

One constant in Yorba Linda politics is controversy regarding the financing of campaigns for City Council members, school trustees and water board directors, especially related to cash that comes from sources outside of the city or school and water district boundaries.

Some residents consider these contributions tainted and say outside special interests are trying to buy the election, while others contend there's nothing wrong with an individual or business – no matter their location – supporting candidates and causes they find worthy.

Fortunately, state law, as administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission, makes it possible for voters to check how candidates and political action committees raise the money to buy endorsements on voter guides and pay for signs, mailers and automated phone calls.

But the law makes sussing out a candidate's or committee's cash trail possible, not easy or timely, since the locations candidates file required disclosures vary, and the cash often isn't reported until well after an election.

The law mandates filings twice every year. Deadline for reporting money raised and spent from Jan. 1 through June 30 is July 31, while the due date for income and expenses July 1 through Dec. 31 is Jan. 31.

In an election year, two additional filings also are required: July 1 through Sept. 24 reports are due Sept. 29 and Sept. 25 through Oct. 22 reports must be in by Oct. 27. Deadline for reports on cash given and bills paid after Oct. 22 is Jan. 31, a fact well-known to major donors.

Here's how residents can find financial information on candidates and committees much more detailed than can be reported in the confines of this column:

City Council reports are available at the City Clerk's counter at City Hall. Ask for Form 460 statements for the persons or committees you want to see. All of the forms for the current election cycle are in a three-ring binder you can ask to review.

Also, council data is posted on the city web page (but contributor addresses are redacted). Click on “Documents” at the top of the home page and click on “here” in the fourth line under “Public Records Request.” Next, click on “Browse,” “City Clerk” and “Campaign Statements,” which are in alphabetical order. Finally, click on “460” for the time period sought.

School trustee and water director candidates and committees file at the Registrar of Voters office,1300 S. Grand Ave., Building C, Santa Ana. While electronic filings are posted on the registrar's web site, local candidates and committees file paper forms, so a trip to the office is required for viewing.

Also available at these locations are candidates' Form 700, the Statement of Economic Interests, listing personal financial information in broad categories and Form 497 listing donations of $1,000 or more in the 90 days before an election that are required to be filed within 24 hours of receipt of the contribution. 

Yorba Linda City Council examines staff report on unfunded pension, retiree health benefits liability

Part of a lengthy and detailed financial report presented to City Council members recently focused on liabilities related to Yorba Linda's unfunded pension and retiree health benefits for employees – a topic that's generated anxieties for many public agencies throughout the state.

The facts and figures regarding the city's obligations for both current and retired employees, as outlined by Finance Director Scott Catlett in a report council “received and filed” after extended discussion, provide an interesting analysis of the issue's impact on local taxpayers.

Yorba Linda's pension plan has $45 million in assets held by the California Public Employees Retirement System, known as CalPERS. To be fully funded, assets should total closer to $60 million.

The unfunded liability is about $14.9 million, making the plan 75.1 percent funded, an uptick from the low point of 63.3 percent funded recorded in 2009 during the economic downswing.

The improvement “reflects both strong investment earnings in the years following the recession and significant decisions made by CalPERS...to mitigate risk and increase the long-term health of the pension fund,” Catlett reported.

Among decisions noted by Catlett is the agency moving “from an actuarial value of assets to a market value of assets to more accurately reflect the true amount of funds on hand.” This and the other changes will increase the future viability of the city's pension plan.

But the changes also increase the city's unfunded liability and the annual rates the city pays to CalPERS, set as a percentage of the city payroll and projected to increase to 30 percent by 2025 before stabilizing at 19 percent. The unfunded liability should be eliminated by 2045.

Of the city's 105 employees, 88 are in a plan allowing full retirement at age 55 with a benefit of two percent of the employee's highest annual pay for each year worked. The remaining 17 are in a plan with full retirement at age 62 with the two percent based on an average of the highest salary for three years worked.

The 88 employees pay 7 percent of salary for each year's pension contribution, while the 17 pay half the cost of the pension benefit. Eventually, all employees will pay half, estimated at 9.5 percent of salary. Currently, 155 retired employees collect CalPERS pensions.

The city's current annual CalPERS contribution of about $1.7 million will climb to $2.4 million in 2025 before gradually declining to $1 million in 2045, according to projections in Catlett's report.

The city's unfunded liability for retiree medical contributions is $15.3 million, more than double from 10 years ago. The current annual growth rate of 12 percent is expected to slow to 7 per-cent in future years.

Catlett noted: “A reduction in retiree medical benefits for future employees will be required if the city wants to curtail the long-term costs...associated with retiree medical insurance.”