City of Chino
CA

Staff Report

Review and approve the proposed Maintenance District Assessments.

Information

Department:Public Works DepartmentSponsors:
Category:Report

Attachments

  1. Printout
  2. LSLMD EXHIBIT 1 FY 2016-17 (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)
  3. LSLMD EXHIBIT 2 FY 2016-17 (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)
  4. LSLMD Assessments Resolution Filing 2016-17 (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)
  5. LSLMD Assessments Resolution Approving 2016-17 (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)
  6. LSLMD Assessments Resolution Intention 2016-17 (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)

Budget String

Revenue: Expenditure: Fund 361 Various Programs Transfer In: Transfer Out:

Body

BACKGROUND

The City has formed six Landscape and Streetlight Maintenance Assessment Districts under authority of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This procedure authorized the City to recover costs that are incurred in providing landscaping and street lighting maintenance service through a special benefit assessment district procedure.

 

Proposition 218 changed the procedural requirements for imposing, extending or increasing landscape and lighting assessments.  Due to these changes, the City Council, in 2002, adopted a policy to annex future developments into Landscape and Streetlight Maintenance District 2002-1, which has a consumer price index (CPI) escalator that allows the City to increase rates.  The CPI adjustment is determined by all urban consumers for the Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County area index from January 2015 - January 2016.  This year, there is a 1.03% CPI increase for landscape and streetlight maintenance for District 2002-1.

 

In past years, the City Council has approved a subsidy to the districts for landscape maintenance costs.  As the costs associated with insurance, maintenance, water, and electricity changes, the subsidy has also changed.  Staff has reviewed the actual Fiscal Year 2014-15 expense ($1,132,553.30) for services and compared it to the actual Fiscal Year 2014-15 revenues.  The actual subsidy amount came to $254,481.61, which was $70,281.20 less than what was mentioned in last year’s report of $324,762.81.  This was due to staff’s ongoing efforts to minimize costs.  It is projected that the Fiscal Year 2016-17 subsidy will be $327,679.23.

 

A Proposition 218 mailed ballot election, with majority support, would be required for any rate increase to the property owners in the districts above their maximum assessment when first annexed into the districts.  Certain Zones in Exhibit 1 had a 5% or less increase since they were not at their maximum assessment when first annexed.  This increase would not trigger a proposition election and would be adjusted each year until it reaches the maximum rate when first annexed.

 

During this fiscal year, staff has worked closely with the landscape maintenance contractor to reduce water consumption by installing drip irrigation systems and adjusting irrigation times in accordance with the water conservation ordinance.  In Fiscal Year 2016-17, staff will establish the Fund 361 titled Assessment Districts to keep better track of the expenditures and revenues within each zone to identify the subsidy.

 

Exhibit 1 enumerates the actual Fiscal Year 2015-16 assessments for the 75-1, 75-2, 76-1, 76-2 and 83-2 assessment districts and staff’s recommended assessments for Fiscal Year 2016-17, holding the per-zone assessments not to exceed their Fiscal Year 2015-16 amounts except in those areas that the rate was below the maximum assessment.  These zones will have a maximum five percent increase over last year’s rate helping reduce the subsidy.

 

Exhibit 2 enumerates the actual Fiscal Year 2016-17 assessments for the 2002-1 assessment district with a CPI rate increase of 1.03 %.

 

The administrative charges (salaries, advertising, consultant services, and other miscellaneous office charges) for all six districts, 75-1, 75-2, 76-1, 76-2, 83-2 and 2002-1 were spread proportionately among the individual assessment areas.  It should be noted that the City contributes 50% of the perimeter cost for the common landscape and lighting areas in the amount of $298,019.28.

 

 

ISSUES/ANALYSIS

For the City to continue assessing fees to maintain its landscape and lighting districts under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Council is required to approve or approve as modified, the attached resolutions in sequence.  This process will evidence the City’s intention to levy and collect assessments.  A public hearing is required even though the rates are not recommended for increases over the allowable costs under Proposition 218, and the hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, 2016.  Mailed notices are not required, only legal advertising and posting are mandated for this year.  The Engineer’s Report provides detailed information on all costs used in determining the proposed assessments and is on file for review in the Public Works Department.

 

 

JA/KP/lm

 

Attachments:              Exhibit 1

                            Exhibit 2

                            Resolution 2016-037

                            Resolution 2016-038

                            Resolution 2016-039

 

 

Meeting History

Jun 7, 2016 7:00 PM Video City Council Regular Meeting
draft Draft
RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Glenn Duncan, Council Member
SECONDER:Tom Haughey, Council Member
AYES:Dennis R. Yates, Eunice M. Ulloa, Glenn Duncan, Tom Haughey
ABSENT:Earl C. Elrod