Print Reading Mode Back to Calendar Return
  Consent-General Government   # 14.       
Board of Supervisors County Counsel  
Meeting Date: 06/25/2013  
Brief Title:    Ag Mitigation Ratio Study Consultant Contract
From: Robyn Truitt Drivon, County Counsel
Staff Contact: Philip J. Pogledich, Senior Deputy, County Counsel, x8275

Subject
Consider approval of contract with Hausrath Economics Group to prepare a "Policy Options and Nexus Study for Increased Mitigation Ratios" for the County's Agricultural Mitigation Program. (General fund impact $65,000) (Drivon)
Recommended Action
Authorize the County Administrator to sign the attached agreement (Attachment A) with Hausrath Economics Group, subject to minor revisions to the scope of work described below.
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
Collaborate to maximize success
Preserve and support agriculture
Protect open space and the environment
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
The County’s current agricultural mitigation policy was established in 2008 by Ordinance No. 1372, the substance of which generally reflected in Yolo County Code Section 8-2.2416 (entitled “Agricultural Conservation Easement Program”). That ordinance requires a project that converts agricultural land to mitigate the loss of agricultural resources by preserving farmland of like or better quality on at least an acre-for-acre basis (a 1:1 mitigation ratio). In addition, relying on its ability to impose mitigation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the County has also applied this requirement to projects that are not covered by the ordinance.

For projects of less than five acres, the County allows applicants to pay a fee in lieu of purchasing conservation easements. The fee program is described in Ordinance No. 1373, also adopted in 2008.

The County’s mitigation program is supported by various policies in the County General Plan. The General Plan also supports performing a feasibility study of changes to the existing program—specifically, to determine whether a mitigation ratio of greater than 1:1 for loss of agricultural land is warranted for some or all urban development projects in the County.

To implement this General Plan policy, the Office of the County Counsel drafted a request for proposals for a study and certain related work to support the evaluation of an increased mitigation ratio.  An excerpt from the RFP is attached hereto as Attachment B.  The Agricultural Commissioner and the Planning and Public Works Department also provided input into the content of the RFP, and an outside law firm (the Sohagi Law Group) with expertise in land use and mitigation programs was also retained to assist in developing the RFP and providing related legal advice.

Two firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP:  the Hausrath Economics Group, and Economic and Planning Systems.  Both proposals were thorough and expressed a strong understanding of the County's needs and relevant issues of law and policy.  After careful consideration, the Hausrath Economics Group was selected to complete the study at a total estimated cost of slightly less than $60,000.
 
The Hausrath Economics Group proposal is attached hereto as Attachment C.  As the proposal reflects, the Hausrath Economics Group will collaborate with Urban Economics (Robert Spencer) and Dr. Louise Jackson, Professor and Cooperative Extension Specialist at UC Davis, in performing the study.  Consistent with the RFP, work will be divided into two phases: 
  • Phase I, focused on analyzing potential strategies for increasing the County's mitigation ratio above 1:1 and developing a "policy options report" for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; and
  • Phase II, focused on refining proposed policy options consistent with Board direction, preparing a "nexus study" to support adoption of the selected policy approach, and performing other work (assisting with ordinances, General Plan amendments, etc.) necessary to support adoption of the selected approach.  [Note that Phase II will not proceed unless the Board so directs at the conclusion of Phase I.]
Overall, in addition to providing legal grounds for increasing the mitigation ratio, the study will attempt to provide a balanced and comprehensive picture of relevant issues for the Board to consider.  This will include, among other things, information on community and environmental benefits associated with farmland preservation as well as general information regarding potential effects on economic development activity within the unincorporated area. 

If the Board authorizes the County Administrator to sign the attached contract, work will proceed expeditiously and the draft policy options report prepared as part of Phase I will be presented to the Board on or about October 22, 2013 (see the schedule attached hereto as Attachment D).  The report will then be finalized with Board input and, if so directed, work on Phase II will proceed with the goal of presenting the Board with the information and documents necessary to make a final decision in early 2014. 

As of the date of preparation of this Board letter, County staff continue to work with the Hausrath Economic Group to make minor revisions to the proposal (which will serve as the scope of work for the study, together with the RFP excerpt attached hereto).  The remaining issues are as follows:
  • In Task 3, clarifying that the evaluation of economic impacts of increased mitigation ratios on developers will be both qualitative and quantitative in nature, with consideration of whether an increased ratio may make new development less economically feasible.  
  • Also in Task 3, clarifying that the effect of increased conservation on County property tax revenues will be evaluated.
  • In Task 5, clarifying that the nexus study will include the elements described in the corresponding section of the RFP.
  • In Task 6, including support for refining ordinances and General Plan policies (as well as attending related meetings) necessary to implement the selected policy approach.  This will result in a minor (around $2,500) increase in overall costs.
This office recommends that the Board authorize the County Administrator to sign the agreement once these minor edits are integrated into the RFP.
Other Agency Involvement
The County Administrator, Planning and Public Works Department, and Agricultural Commissioner have been consulted in the course of developing the RFP and preparing this item for Board consideration.

Fiscal Impact
Fiscal impact (see budgetary detail below)
Fiscal Impact (Expenditure)
Total cost of recommended action:    $   65,000
Amount budgeted for expenditure:    $   70,000
Additional expenditure authority needed:    $  
One-time commitment     Yes
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
$65,000
Explanation (Expenditure and/or Revenue)
Further explanation as needed:

Other costs associated with completing the study include the cost of legal services by the Sohagi Law Group.  The total cost for the study and related tasks is not expected to exceed $100,000 (including all outside consulting and law firm costs, as well as reimbursement of the Office of the County Counsel for staff time).

Attachments
PDF_Staff Report
Att. A. Agreement
Att. B. RFP Excerpt
Att. C. Hausrath Economics Group Proposal
Att. D. Schedule

Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Phil Pogledich Phil Pogledich 06/18/2013 03:27 PM
Financial Services hnewens 06/19/2013 04:40 PM
County Counsel (Originator) rdrivon 06/19/2013 04:48 PM
Form Started By: Phil Pogledich Started On: 06/11/2013 01:15 PM
Final Approval Date: 06/19/2013

    

Level double AA conformance,
                W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved.