HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - LIGHTING FLOOD CONTROL (2)L
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval _�!� I _,L
Item to be presented by. �l
NEW BUSINESS John E. Medina & Jeff Kolin
DATE: October 30, 1990
SUBJECT: SPECIAL DISTRI
LIGHTING, OOD CONTROL, SANITATION,SC
DEPARTMENT: Public Wor Parks and Recreatio
BACKGROUND
Staff has been directed by the Council to investigate the feasibility and
appropriateness of assuming the responsibilities of several special districts
within the City. The purpose of this analysis and discussion is to determine
whether the City. can operate these districts more efficiently and effectively.
In addition, we were to review these districts and determine if there was a need
to operate and administer them with more desirable standards than are currently
being.implemented. These standards might be improved levels of maintenance, the
types of systems to be constructed, and prioritization of capital improvements.
Attached is a topical discussion of each of these special districts in greater
detail for the Council's reference. In this background section we will simply
be summarizing that discussion and the reasons for our recommendations.
LIGHTING DISTRICT
The Lighting District is a financing district which provides a collection system
to pay for the costs to maintain and energize street lights within the
district. The actual lights are owned by and maintained by ,the Edison Company.
The cost of this maintenance and electrical energy is assessed against the
properties within the City that are included within the district and receive the
benefits from street lighting. We havereceivedfew complaints, if any, on the
operation of the district and feel that the City administration of the district
would not be cost effective. We do not suggest changes in the type, design, and
methodology of operating street lights within the City.
We have received some inquiries from the Committee for'Better Lighting regarding
the use of cut-off lights and by low pressure sodium lights. These questions
are posed in the interest of providing a more economical lighting system and one
which does not light up the nighttime sky. We have investigated both of these
concerns and find that the current practice of installing cut-off light fixtures
which direct more of the light to the ground rather than skyward are being
implemented throughout the district. The use of low pressure sodium lights
provide a light that is more peach colored, similar to those that you may have
observed in the Cities of Long Beach and San Diego. We have found that when
considering all the factors, low pressure sodium lights are not cost effective.
They may save electrical energy, but maintenance, change over, and reduced bulb
life increases the cost beyond that which we experience with high pressure
sodium lights. The light source is monochromatic which means that minimal color
differentiation exists to the human eye of cars, buildings, plants, etc.
��
APPROVED �i�ua�fiem:Ron
! 0
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Unlike the other three districts that we investigated, the Flood Control
District does cover the entire City of Santa Clarita. This District has the
expressed purpose of maintaining existing flood control works and providing
resources during floods to protect properties and structures throughout the
district. Existing flood control works were either built by developers or under
bond issues which were approved by the voters by 50% majority in previous
years. Proposition 13, which requires a two-thirds majority .vote to .enact any
new bond issues has effectively stopped this financing mechanism as a means to
provide funds to install additional flood control works within the district.
A major concern and advantage of a single district is that drainage areas and
floodwaters do not respect jurisdictional boundaries. Any flood control works
should be coordinated through a single entity in order to provide clear and
unilateral direction as it relates to flood control. There is also an economy
of scale and a wealth of resources that can be in specific areas within the
district which is a major benefit to the City.
Although there may be and has been a desire by the Council to provide more
natural features to all of the flood control systems within the City, we do not
think that this outweighs the benefits that we currently receive from the
district. Even though this could be a reason to assume responsibility for the
district, there are methods in which the City can impose its own standards and
still have a system maintained by the current district. We also have the
ability to provide our own assessment and special districts to provide for the
actual construction of any flood control works if we have a greater priority for
them.
SANITATION DISTRICT
The two Sanitation Districts serve those portions of the City that are currently
provided with public sanitary sewers. The district has and owns some major
collector sewers and two treatment facilities for the treatment of sewage
generated within -the City and adjoining County area. Two of the Council members
sit on the Board for each of these districts and provide the administrative
leadership that the .City would receive if it assumed the operation of the
districts.
The remaining sewer collection system, which encompasses approximately 95% of
all the sewers within City streets is owned by the City. Maintenance of these
sewers is provided through the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District. This
special district is administered by the Board of Supervisors and is operated by
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. It is simply a maintenance
district which does not provide for any design standards or sufficient funds for
capital improvements or replacement of City owned sewers. For our five year
capital improvement program we will be proposing that a study be conducted to
investigate the need and the timing for replacement of these sewers.
At this point, we do not feel that the assumption of responsibility by the City
for either the Sanitation District or the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance
District would be an effective or efficient proposition. We will, however,
continue to investigate the replacement and timing for existing sewers and have
included in the budget a study to ascertain the effectiveness of the operation
of the sanitation district.
LANDSCAPING DISTRICT
Many of the medians and side panels within the City limits are currently within
Landscape Maintenance Districts and are administered by the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation. The total acreage of existing Landscape
Maintenance District within the City is 115.8 acres which includes paseos and
many commonly owned areas both landscaped. and open space. Maintenance services
provided by Landscape Maintenance Districts include; the furnishing of all
labor, material and equipment necessary for the provision of landscape and
pertinent maintenance services. The Contractor has the exclusive duty and right
to mow, edge, trim, overseed, reseed, fertilize, aerate, irrigate, hand water
and bleed valves as necessary during emergencies when automatic systems are not
functioning; prune, trim and renovate turf and shrub areas, as well to provide
disease control and tree maintenance within the District, maintenance and
sprinkler systems including backflow prevention devises, repair of walkways,
pumps and the necessary maintenance of an pertinent structures or equipment
including walkway lighting, utility costs, capital improvements and repairs.
The City has received numerous inquiries from the public concerning the quality
of maintenance provided by Landscape Maintenance Districts in various areas of
the City. Fifteen of the 16 Landscape Maintenance Districts in the City 'have
been formed to maintain landscape areas not associated with public rights of
way, but instead deal with green belts around recreation centers, open space
behind and within housing developments, and commonly owned green belts between
residences and around recreation centers. Landscape Maintenance District -Number
One, however has been formed to maintain medians and side panels along some of
the.major arterials in the City. Staff is currently recommending that the City
take over Landscape Maintenance District Number One so that more control can be
exerted over the level of maintenance provided to arterial medians and side
panels. As new medians are developed within the City they would be absorbed or
annexed into.Maintenance District Number One. The City is currently forming new
maintenance districts to cover landscaped areas on Soledad Canyon Road and
Sierra Highway. These new districts would also ultimately be annexed into
Landscape Maintenance District Number One as a City—wide arterial maintenance
district.
Except for the assumption of one of the landscaping districts, staff does not
propose the assumption of the flood control district, sanitation district,
consolidated sewer maintenance district, or lighting district. We will continue
to monitor these special districts to determine when it might be appropriate to
assume these responsibilities. During the investigation process we will also
determine the legal constraints regarding this district reorganization. There
are provisions in the District Reorganization Act requiring a City to have a
certain percentage of the area and/or service customer in order for it to assume
responsibility for the districts. We will also continue to work with all of
these districts to implement the Council's policies and desires and to provide a
level of service that is acceptable to.our residents.
0
1. Staff is recommending that the process for taking over Landscape
Maintenance District #1 be commenced, and that the City Manager be
authorized to sign such documents as are necessary to complete the
process. If the Council agrees with the staff recommendation, a Joint
Resolution (City -County) will be prepared for a future Council meeting, and
a Notice of Intent will be filed with the County of Los Angeles.
2. Staff be directed to continue to monitor and implement the Council's
direction for the operation of sewer maintenance, sanitation, flood
control, and lighting districts and to bring to the Council, when
appropriate, a plan to assume the responsibility of any one of these
districts.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
/tw
a 0
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
TOPICAL DISCUSSION
The Los. Angeles County Flood Control District is a :special District created
under provisions of State law to provide flood control services within the
boundary of the -District. This District, like many other special districts,
provides a service within areas that are otherwise governed by multiple
entities. It also provides a mechanism whereby those properties that benefit
from these services on an area -wide basis are the properties which would pay
for that service. Floodwaters do not respect political boundaries and are
there for an ideal candidate for the establishment of a special district to
deal with the consequences and control of floodwaters.
The current boundary of the Flood Control District includes all of Los Angeles
County up to Avenue S in the Antelope Valley which is near the south boundary
of the City of Palmdale. The express purpose of the District is to maintain
existing flood control run-off systems in a safe and effective operating
condition to respond to flood emergencies, and to provide limited capital
improvement projects to expand the flood control system. Currently, the
District spends approximately $86,500,000 on maintenance and capital
improvements throughout the District.
Prior to the approval of Proposition 13, the District received all of its
funds from ad valorem taxes on properties within the District. Currently it
receives with other districts in the County, a proportionate share of this ad
valorem tax. The current share is approximately $25,000,000. The remaining
portion is assessed by a special assessment and is based on the run-off to be
expected from parcels within the District. A typical single family residence
would pay $23.50 under the current program. A more intense use would, pay a
somewhat higher rate, and those areas that have no development would have a
zero assessment. Approximately $30,000,000 is used to provide capital
improvements, i.e., flood control works throughout the District. Currently
the District is providing funds for the construction of storm drain
improvements in the vicinity of Live Oaks Spring Canyon. This project
successfully competed with other needed flood control improvements within the
District and was selected as a priority project.
The advantages of continuing to participate in the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District is the economy scale of a large district as it relates to the
cost of maintenance and the ability to receive large amounts of equipment and
personnel resources during times of major flooding. The ability to have a
consistent approach and coordination of flood control improvements within a
drainage area that may pass through and affect several jurisdictional
boundaries is also a benefit.
Of course, the City can establish its own standards as it relates to flood
control improvements and select those areas where improvements should be
installed which exhibit the greatest need. The City also has the ability to
establish special assessment districts and other financing mechanisms to
construct flood control improvements that could be transferred to the district
for its continued maintenance. At this point, the advantages of continuing
the current district operation outweighs the City's assumption of flood
control maintenance within the City.
i 0
LIGHTING DISTRICTS
TOPICAL DISCUSSION
Those areas within the City that currently have street lights are within a
Lighting District. The District is another special district with the express
purpose of providing neighborhood lighting within specific areas.
The current operation of the District is a design financing function. The
basic processes are:
• Street lights are owned and operated by the Southern California Edison
Company;
• Design location type and light entensity are based on the lighting
standards established by the Illuminating Engineers Society;
• The initial installation and first year energy costs are paid by
developers; and
• Each year the Board of Supervisors establishes a rate, currently $15.00
per year, for single family residents to pay the 'annual energy and
maintenance costs.
We have concluded that there is no advantage and may be a disadvantage to the
City to assume the responsibility of the Lighting District based on the
following:
• The City would have little control over design operation and maintenance
of the City system based on few, if any, public concerns the District is
currently operating to the level of the public's expectations;
• We would need at least six additional personnel to assume the
administration of the District; and
• Prior administrative costs could result as we would lose the economy of
scale we currently receive from the administrative costs of the County's
larger District.
Recently we received information from a local committee known as the Committee
for Better Lighting that poses certain questions regarding the current
operation and administration of the District. Their questions revolve around
a desire to reduce the amount of light that spills skyward in the operation of
most street lights and a desire to consider the use of low pressure sodium
lights which have less energy requirements for a given quantity of light than
high pressure sodium lights. .
0
Lighting Districts
Topical Discussion
Page 2
We agree with the Committee that we should reduce the amount of light which is
reflected skyward from the old type of drop bowl fixtures which are those
lights which have the typical round globe beneath the light. A new type of
light, called a semi -cut-off or cut-off light are currently installed by the
District in all new installations. These lights do not have a glass ball
fixture which is below the fixture housing. In order to be able to see the
actual bulb itself, you must stand almost directly beneath the light. The
major advantage of this type of fixture is that there is very little spill
over skyward of the actual light energy. Most of that energy and illumination
is directed toward the street which is the real purpose of having the lights
there. We have estimated that it would cost approximately $370,000 to change
all of the City's existing. drop bowl. fixtures to cut-off fixtures. We feel
that this cost outweighs the benefits and do not recommend that the light
fixtures be changed at'this time.
We also investigated the issues of high pressure sodium verses low pressure
sodium lights because of the potential energy savings. Currently, most of the
street lights in the City of Santa Clarita are high pressure sodium lights.
Low pressure sodium lights are those lights having a more peach color to them
and are very prominent in the Long Beach area. After researching and
contacting the cities that are already using the low pressure sodium lights,
we found out that some of these cities have considered changing their lighting
systems from low pressure sodium to high pressure sodium lights. Numerous
complaints of businesses- and law enforcement agencies regarding the color
perception and inadequate lighting due to low pressure sodium lights caused
their reconsideration. In addition, although energy costs may be less for low
pressure sodium lights, lamp light material and maintenance costs appear to
offset this advantage. This, of course, does not detract from the advantage
that low pressure sodium lights have as it relates to the amount of light that
they generate. They do not typically light up the City the way high pressure
sodium lights do which results in a clear view of the nighttime sky. This is
especially important in areas that have observatories, such as.San Diego which
uses these lights in order to be able to study the stars and planets. At this
point, we do not feel the need to change from high pressure sodium to low
pressure sodium lights is appropriate for the City. However, we will continue
to monitor both of these issues and provide any new information if the
situation and information change.
SEWER DISTRICTS
TOPICAL DISCUSSION
SANITATION DISTRICT
The City currently is served by County Sanitation Districts #36 and #32. All
areas within the City that are served by sanitary sewers are within one of
these two Districts. These Districts are special districts and are
administered jointly through the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Each
District is governed by at least three Board members. The City is represented
in two of these Board positions.
These special Districts provide sewage treatment and major trunk sewers which
are the back—bone system within the City served by sewers. The District also
provides industrial waste permitting and monitoring programs in order to
regulate and control this type of waste. The District not only maintains its
sewer system and treatment facilities, but also processes the daily sewage
flow from the City and adjacent County areas.
The Districts also share in an ad valorem tax and uses a service charge to
make up the difference that was lost after Proposition 13. The current charge
for a single family dwelling is approximately $90.00 per year in the two
Districts.
Again, there are economies of scale in the operation of a large district. The
City could assume the operation of the District including maintenance and the
treatment facilities. The current budget provides funds for an analysis of
the benefits that the Citymay receive if it assumed operation of the
Districts. Until the study is completed, we do not feel that it would be
appropriate to begin the assumption of the Districts' operations.
CONSOLIDATED SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
The Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District is another special district which
provides sewer maintenance services for City sewers. As indicated above, the
Sanitation District treats the sewage whereas the City owns approximately 95%
of all the sewers within the City streets. The establishment of the
Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District was done for the express purpose of
providing maintenance services for these sewers.
This District was also effected by Proposition 13. They share in no portion
of the ad valorem property tax that they did prior to the passage of
Proposition 13. The District uses special assessments to fund maintenance
costs. The.current cost for a single family residence is $12..50 per year.
The majority of the assessment collected is used. for maintenance purposes.
Any new sewers are either provided by developments or are done through another
type of special assessment district. Once the sewers are accepted by the City
for maintenance then the City simply transfers maintenance duties to the
Maintenance District. Again, the economy of scale and the vast resources of
this District does not warrant the assumption of these services at this time,
however, staff is still pursuing the need for a capital replacement program
for those sewers that have existed for more than 30 years within the City.
Although there are no current deficiencies in this infrastructure system, more
detailed studies will need to be conducted to determine what the expected
service life of the system is and what capital monies need to be set aside for
replacement as these sewers age, deteriorate, and no longer function properly.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
TOPICAL DISCUSSION
The large majority of medians and sidepanels within the City limits are
currently within Landscape Maintenance Districts and are administered by the
Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. The total acreage of
existing landscape maintenance districts in the City is 115.8 acres (5,045,364
square feet), which includes paseos and many commonly owned areas, both
landscaped and open space.
Fifteen -of the 16 landscape maintenance districts in the City have been formed
to maintain landscaped areas not associated with public rights-of-way, but
instead deal with green belts around recreation centers, open space behind and
within housing developments, and commonly owned green belts between residences
and around recreation centers. Landscape Maintenance District #1, however,
has been formed to maintain medians and sidepanels along some of the major
arterials in the City, and will be described below under Landscape Maintenance
District - Operating Costs.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS - SERVICES
The maintenance services provided by Landscape Maintenance Districts include
the furnishing of all labor, material and equipment necessary for the
provision of landscape and appurtenant maintenance services. The contractor
has the exclusive duty and right to mow, edge, trim, overseed, reseed,
fertilize, aerate, irrigate, hand water, and bleed valves as necessary during
emergencies when automatic systems are not functioning; prune,- trim and
renovate turf and shrub areas, as well as to provide for disease control and
tree maintenance within the District, maintenance of sprinkler systems
including backflow prevention devices, repair of walkways, pumps and the
necessary maintenance of any appurtenant structures and equipment, including
walkway lighting, utility costs, capital improvements and repair.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS - OPERATING COSTS
The County of Los Angeles Parks and Recreation Department, which administers
all landscape maintenance districts in the City, incurred average costs
ranging from $.04 / square foot / year for a district composed chiefly of
natural and brushed slopes to a high of $.51 / square foot / year for a
district composed of turf, shrub beds and trees. Areas composed of turf,
shrub beds and trees averaged $.35 / square foot/ year.
In order to make some reasonable assumption's about parcel assessments for
median and sidepanel maintenance costs alone, staff examined the Landscape
Maintenance District known as Area -Wide Landscape Maintenance District #1.
This Landscape Maintenance District services medians and sidepanels almost
exclusively and serves the Valencia area - encompassing Lyons Avenue, Orchard
Village Road, McBean Parkway, Valencia Blvd, Wiley Canyon Road, the Old Road
and some smaller streets adjacent to the major arterials. The number of
parcels assessed by this Landscape and Lighting Assessment District is 7,475;
and the sum total of medians and sidepanels maintained is 830,689 square -feet.
There are two funding sources for this Landscape Maintenance District - one
from the 1911 Lighting Act that generates $213,000 from the secured tax levy
(property tax), and a post Proposition 13 funding source under the 1972
Lighting and Landscape Act that generates an additional $56,062, totaling
$269,062 from annual parcel assessments. The 1989-90 budget for this
Landscape District is $286,000, or $.345 per square foot. The annual parcel
assessment creates a shortfall of about $17,000.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #1 PARCEL ASSESSMENT
The combined Landscape Maintenance District #1 parcel assessment is $35.99 per
parcel .for the 7,475 parcels assessed. If the shortfall were addressed, the
assessment would be $36.26 per parcel. If the entire City were to be assessed
for the Area -Wide #1 Landscape Maintenance District, the parcel assessment
using current rates ,would be $6.72 per parcel. If the rates were changed to
make up for the current $17,000 shortfall, the assessment would be $7.15 per
parcel. Should the City decide to take over Landscape Maintenance District O1
and extend the boundaries to include Soledad Canyon Road, Bouquet Canyon Road,
San Fernando Road, Sierra Highway, etc., a determination would have to be made
as to whether only the adjoining properties or all City parcels would be
assessed for the maintenance of the major arterials.
CITY MEDIANS - CURRENT OPERATING COSTS AND PARCEL ASSESSMENT PROJECTION
The City currently maintains about 133,680 sq. ft. of medians that are not in
landscape maintenance districts and are principally along portions of Valencia
Boulevard, Lyons Avenue and Soledad Canyon Road. Using the average cost per
square foot for maintenance of $0.345, the maintenance costs would be $46,119;
this cost is currently allocated out of general fund monies. If a City-wide
landscape maintenance district were formed to fund this maintenance, the
City-wide parcel assessment for this service would be $1.15 per year. This
assessment is based on the 40,000 parcels listed by the County Assessor's
office. If the parcel assessment were only against the parcels not currently
assessed by Landscape Maintenance District #1, the assessment would be against
32,525 parcels at $1.42 per parcel for current City median maintenance.
CITY MEDIANS - FUTURE COSTS AND PARCEL ASSESSMENT
Using Capital Improvement Project projections, the City will construct about
four acres per year of City medians and sidepanels costing $61,493 more per
year for maintenance. Using current construction projections through 1996, an
additional $215,225 would be needed for maintenance of 14 acres of new medians
and sidepanels. Under current arrangements, this would be allocated out of
general fund monies. If a landscape maintenance district were formed to fund
projected City median maintenance, the 1996 City median maintenance costs
would be, including existing medians, $276,718. A 1996 City-wide parcel
assessment against 40,000 parcels would then be $6.92. If the assessment was
only against those parcels not served by Landscape Maintenance District #1,
the cost would be $8.50; (32,525 parcels).
COMBINED CITY AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT MEDIANS -
PROJECTED PARCEL ASSESSMENT - 1996
It is possible that the boundaries of Landscape Maintenance District #1 could
be expanded to include the current City medians through Resolutions of
Initiation, Intention and Adoption, as well as public hearings. If that were
to occur, the 1996 maintenance cost for Landscape Maintenance District #1 plus
existing and future City medians and sidepanels is projected to be $562,718
(includes a rate adjustment to make up for $17,000 shortfall.) If all parcels
in the City were assessed equally, the assessment would be $14.07 per parcel
for the combined existing and future City medians and sidepanels and Landscape
Maintenance District #1 medians and sidepanels.
MEDIAN AND SIDEPANEL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS CURRENTLY BEING FORMED
There are some landscape maintenance districts being formed now along Sierra
Highway and other major arterials to maintain landscaped medians and
sidepanels. It may be the long term vision of the City to take over Landscape
Maintenance District #1, expand the boundaries of Landscape Maintenance
District #1 to include current City medians, and then annex those landscape
maintenance districts currently being formed for median and sidepanel
maintenance along arterials into Landscape Maintenance District #1, thereby
creating a City-wide Landscape Maintenance District maintaining most of the
major arterials in the City. Future consideration should be given to
extending the boundaries of this proposed landscape maintenance district to
include Bouquet Canyon,. Soledad Canyon and San Fernando Roads, and other
future arterials as may be constructed in the .City, and to annexing those
newly formed Districts along Sierra Highway and other major arterial
rights-of-way.
SUMMARY
If the City were to proceed to take-over Landscape District #1, the procedures
would be as follows:
1. Notify the County Parks and Recreation Department of our intent.
2. File a Joint Resolution with City Council and County Board of
Supervisors to take over the LLAD from the 1911 Lighting Act.
3. File papers with LAFCO and the State to take over the Landscape
Maintenance District from the 1972 Lighting and Landscape Act.
If the boundaries of the territory within District #1 are to be extended to
include additional property and/or arterial street rights-of-way, Section
22608 of the Act requires:
1. Joint Resolution of Initiation
2. Engineer's Report
3. Resolution of Intention
4. Notice of Hearing
5. Resolution of Adoption
The notices of hearings on the proposal must be published, posted in the
territory to be annexed, and mailed to the property owners of such territory,
all in accordance with the Act.
•
ATTACHMENT A
1990-91
0
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
IN THE CITY OFSANTACLARITA
ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
NUMBER OF
PARCELS
PARCEL
ASSESSMENT
TOTAL
411
- Area -wide Valencia - LLAD
7,475
28.49
$
213,000
411
- Area -wide Valencia - LMD
7,475
7.50
$
56,062
412
- Old Orchard
1,041
48.00
49,968
413
- Valencia Hills
465
100.00
46,500
414
- Valencia Meadows
666
66.00
43,956
415
- La Questa
741
72.00
53,352
416
- Valencia Village South
571
76.00
43;396
417
- Valencia Village North
1,718
60.00
103,080
418
- Valencia McBean
1,446
360.00
520,560
419
- Valencia Corp Center
25
685.00
17,125
4110
- Valencia Stanford
10
175.00
1,750
4117
- Rainbow Glen
75
307.00
23,025
4129
- American Beauty Village East
137
248.00
33,976
4130
- Valencia City Center
10
250.00*
2,500
4131
- Shangri-La
115
348.00
40,020
4142
- Newhall "Circle J"
228
265.00
60,420
4120
- E1 Dorado (figures not available)
---
---
Ave. cost -
22,198
$ 58.96
$
12308,690
per parcel
* Not operating but collecting money
ATTACHMENT B
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Dist
Natural
Planted
Brushed
Shrub
District
_1C_
Slopes*
Slopes*
Slopes*
Turf* Beds* Annuals*
Total Area*
1
0.208
56,000
766,656
64,033
830,689
2
0,306
113,000
45,560
172,240
217,800
3
0.226
30,000
21,780
304,920
326,700
4
0.185
157,000
43$60
65,340
108,900
5
130,680
43,560
174,240
6
6,534
132,858
139,392
7
247,856
266,588
5140444
8
819,799
35,000
6;000
860,799
9
50,000**
250000**
750000
17
200,300
57,000
257,300
29
235,224
207,600
21,780
464,604
31
124,146
87,120
10,000 1,761
223,027
42
691,297
161,172
852,469
Items Included:
Contract Services
Utilities
Weed Abatement and Rodent Control
Administration
Tree Trimming (3 year cycle)
Capital Improvement and Repairs
* Square Feet
** Estimate
89-90
Estimated
Actual
Cost per
Budget
Sq. Ft.
$286,300
0.345
90,600
0.416
68,000
0.208
56,000
0.514
73,400
0.421
42,600
0,306
113,000
0.220
194,000
0.225
17,000
0.226
30,000
0.117
16,000
0.036
41,200
0.185
157,000
0.184
TOTAL
AVERAGE
$ 1,185,800 $0.26
i
ATTACHMENT C
0
0
PROPOSED PARCEL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
ASSESSMENT
35.99
36.26
6.72
7.15
1.15
1.42
6.92
8.50
14.07
MEDIANS ARD SIDEPANELS
PARCELS
1.
LMD O1 (Current)
7,475
2.
LMD #1 (Current) & shortfall adjustment
7,475
3.
LMD #1 (Current) - City-wide assessment
40,000
4.
LMD ill (Current) - City-wide assessment
and shortfall adjustment
40,000
5.
City medians (Current) - City-wide
assessment
400000
6.
City medians (Current) - exclude LMD Cpl
parcels
32,525
7.
City medians (1996) - City-wide assessment
40,000
8.
City medians (1996) - exclude LMD #1
32,525
9.
IM #1 & City medians (1996)
40,000
ASSESSMENT
35.99
36.26
6.72
7.15
1.15
1.42
6.92
8.50
14.07