Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - COUNTY LIGHTING LLA-1 (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: October 28, 1997 City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Vawrence P. Cushman SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RESOLUTION NOS. 97-123, 97-124, AND 97-125 DEPARTMENT: Transportation and Engineering Services RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. City Council adopt Resolution No. 97-123, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita requesting detachment of County Lighting District LLA -1, City of Santa Clarita Zone; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 97-124; a Joint Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approving the transfer of jurisdiction over County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867 situated within the territorial boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 97-125, a Joint Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisorsapproving and accepting a negotiated exchange of property tax revenue resulting from the transfer of jurisdiction over County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867. There are currently two Street Lighting Maintenance Districts within the City of Santa Clarita, which are administered by the Los Angeles County Public Works, Traffic and Lighting Division, located in Alhambra. Responsibility for this consolidated district was not transferred during incorporation of the City in 1987. In August 1996, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the required steps to transfer the administration of the Street Lighting District to the City. Concerned with the potential effects of Proposition 218 if passed on November 5, 1996, staff initiated a study to evaluate the feasibility of administering the. District within the constraints of Proposition 218. This Feasibility Study was completed in fall 1996. It includes a detailed analysis of each District, including financial histories and projections. The study is on file with the City Clerk. Adopted: Acreta Item:-,/_. TRANSFER OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS October 28, 1997 - Page 2 In November 1996, the passage of Proposition 218 became the primary consideration regarding the possible transfer of the District. This proposition put additional constraints on the administering agency's ability to collect the special assessment funds required to administer the District. There were numerous conflicting legal opinions on how the Proposition was to be implemented. Based on these concerns, staff was further directed to monitor the County's progress in administering the District during the remainder of Fiscal Year 1997-1998 while Proposition 218 went through legislative implementation. The County declared the District exempt from the ballot approval process, since they contend street lighting is, a part of street maintenance and operational expenses. The City Attorney's office agrees with the exempt status, but under a different criterion. Upon incorporation, the citizens of Santa Clarita voted approval of the existing Street Lighting Maintenance District and the rate established in 1987. An increase above this established rate will not be required in the near future. The City would activate this provision upon acceptance of the District and would ensure that ongoing revenues provide for ongoing expenses. Currently, the County is using the reserve balance to supplement the annual revenues to pay for the service the District provides annually. While the reserve is available, the County will not increase the assessment rate. This substantial reserve balance reflects the disparity between the two governmental agencies' interpretations of the Improvement Act of 1911 and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 as the acts apply to maintaining street lighting. The County's interpretation restricts the use of the reserve to maintenance of existing lighting. Section 5843.5 of the Streets and Highways Code states that the funds can be used for additional lighting as well. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The County would continue to administer the District. Estimated operational budget for FY 1998-99 is $1,176,060. Three sources of funds are available to pay the budgeted items: 1. Ad valorem taxes collected through annual property tax bills $1,076,991 2. Benefit assessments levied on property through annual property tax bills 38,924 3. Reserve balance* 60.145 Total Revenue: 1 176 060 * The assessment rate established for Fiscal Year 1998-99 is determined in February 1998 through the Engineer's Report, and the rate per parcel is sent to the County Auditor in August 1998. The reserve must be utilized in this first year of City administration. TRANSFER OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS October 28, 1997 - Page 3 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 97-123 Resolution No. 97-124 Resolution No. 97-125 1996 Feasibility Study is available for review in the City Clerk's Reading File DMK1kl ow 61%armimd.dmk RESOLUTION NO. 97-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REQUESTING DETACHMENT OF COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1, CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONE WHEREAS, County Lighting District LLA -1, City of Santa Clarita Zone, was formed by and under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles under and pursuant to the provisions of Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code; WHEREAS, County Lighting District LLA -1, City of Santa Clarita Zone, is contained entirely within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita; and WHEREAS, Section 22604 of Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles may order the detachment of territory from an existing assessment district formed under Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to order the detachment of County Lighting District LLA -1, City of Santa Clarita Zone, from the remainder of the County Lighting District LLA -1 pursuant to Section 22605 of Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 19_ MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 97-123 October 28, 1997 - Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: - COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK The foregoing Joint Resolution No. 97-123 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the day of '199 10 Chairman, Board of Supervisors DMK:lkl .,incl!\w,1.d.dmk JOANNE STURGES Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles M RESOLUTION NO. 97-124 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (CLMD) NO. 1867, SITUATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA WHEREAS, The City. of Santa Clarita, by Resolution No. 97-124, adopted October 28, 1997, has requested and consented to the transfer of jurisdiction from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita over County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867, located within the territorial boundaries of the incorporated City and such resolution has been transmitted to the County, and has authorized the Mayor and/or the City Engineer to accept the transfer on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita and the City Engineer to execute all documents necessary to complete the transfer of this District from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita, and such resolution has been transmitted to the County; WHEREAS, Section 5851 of the Streets and Highways Code provides that if the whole district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code, is included within one city, upon receipt of a resolution of the city requesting transfer of jurisdiction over the district and the funds of the district, jurisdiction over the district shall be transferred by resolution of the Board of Supervisors to the city and the funds of the district shall be paid to the treasurer of the city to be used by the city for the benefit of the district; and WHEREAS, the boundaries of CLMD No. 1867 are located entirely within the corporate boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, DO HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council requests transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita, and the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita agree to the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita effective July 1, 1998. SECTION 2. That the City Council authorized the Mayor and/or City Engineer to accept the transfer on behalf of -the City of Santa Clarita and the City Engineer to execute all documents necessary to complete the transfer of this District. SECTION 3. That the transfer shall take effect on July 1, 1998. The County of Los Angeles will continue all duties associated with administration of the District until such time as the District is formally turned over and accepted by the City on July 1, 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 97-124 October 28, 1997 - Page 2 SECTION 4. That all records for CLMD 1867 and LLA -1, Santa Clarita Zone, be transferred to the City of Santa Clarita within thirty (30) days from the effective date of jurisdictional transfer. SECTION 5. That upon the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction, CLMD No. 1867 shall be designated "Santa Clarita Lighting Maintenance District No. 2." SECTION 6. That all subsequent annexations of territory into the City shall automatically include the transfer of jurisdiction of the Street Lighting Maintenance District as part of the process to annex unincorporated territory into the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 7. The City of Santa Clarita agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless County and all of its officers, agents, and employees from any and all liability, claims, damages, or injuries to any person, including injury to City employees and all claims which arise from or are connected with the performance of or failure to perform the work or other obligations of this Agreement, or as caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of City, its agents, or employees, and all expenses of investigation and defending against same; provided, however, that this indemnification and hold harmless provision shall not apply to any claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its agents, or employees. SECTION 8. NULL AND VOID. The City of Santa Clarita agrees to the terms of this Joint Resolution as executed by the City Council on the date below. Should any terms or conditions herein be changed or altered in any form or manner, after the date of execution by the City of Santa Clarita, this resolution shall be deemed null and void. SECTION 9. The Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this Joint Resolution with the County Auditor - Controller. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 19_. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 97-124 October 28, 1997 - Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT:. COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK The foregoing Joint Resolution No. 97-124 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the day of ,199_. JOANNE STURGES Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 5 Chairman, Board of Supervisors DMK:IM w.oi\.-d d.d.k RESOLUTION NO. 97-125 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVING AND ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (CLMD) NO. 1867 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, prior to the effective date of any jurisdictional change, the governing bodies of all agencies whose service areas or service responsibilities would be altered by such change must determine the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged between the affected agencies and approve and accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues by resolution, but if the affected agency is a special district, the Board of Supervisors must negotiate on behalf of the district; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita have determined that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867 is as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue resulting from the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita is approved and accepted. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Resolution No. 97-124, upon the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita, CLMD No. 1867 shall thereafter be designated "Santa Clarita Lighting Maintenance District No. 2." SECTION 3. For each fiscal year commencing on and after July 1, 1998, or after the effective date of this jurisdictional change, whichever is later, all property tax revenue received by Santa Clarita Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 (formerly County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867) shall be transferred to the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 4. That the County of Los Angeles shall forward the amount of $100,000 of the district fund balance within thirty (30) days from approval of the joint resolution. These funds will be used for City costs for the transfer and set up processes. SECTION 5. That the County of Los Angeles will forward approximately 90% of the fund balance, that is, $2,687,639, within thirty (30) days from the effective date of transfer, July 1, 1998. SECTION 6. That the County of Los Angeles will forward the remaining fund balance on October 1, 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 97-125 October 28, 1997 - Page 2 SECTION 7. No additional transfer of property tax revenues shall be made to or from any other taxing agency(ies) as a result of this jurisdictional change. SECTION 8. The Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby ordered and directed to file a certified copy of this Joint Resolution with the County Auditor - Controller. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 19_. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 19_ by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 97-125 October 28, 1997 - Page 3 The foregoing Joint Resolution No. 97-125 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, on the day of , 199_. LM Chairman, Board of Supervisors DMKlkl ..d1% .d.a.a* JOANNE STURGES Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles LM LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PREPARED BY: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES :Y Mf �.a LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY PREPARED FOR: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PREPARED BY: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES cis 4 -sank elm -ad a t TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1 BACKGROUND...........................................................3 Lighting Maintenance District History Existing Lighting Maintenance Services LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE ISSUES ..................... 5 Existing Lighting Deficiencies Potential Enhancements to the Lighting System Ongoing Service Level Standards FISCAL IMPACTS.........................................................9 Existing Fund Balances and Revenue Sources First Year Budgeting and Assessment Levy Projected Levy and Collection from 1997/98 to 2002/03 (no rate increases) Long -Term Impact of Existing Assessment Legislation and Proposition 218 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER ............... 14 Ad Valorem Dollar Transfers Reserve Fund Transfers Assessment Levy for Fiscal Year 1997/98 SCHEDULE FOR TRANSFER .............................................. 16 SUMMARY OF PROS AND CONS .......................................... 17 Appendix A -- Sample Resolutions Appendix B -- Map of Lighting District Appendix C -- Detailed Analysis of Proposition 218 Appendix D -- Improvements and Services Eligible Through 1972 Act Legislation 02040/0506/6480 E:WML WORK\FEASSTDYV.LD_XFRI.WPD Lwdty District Ftnsibitt3y Study P"parrd by MUdsa Assottatas . ' � • '' �}'S �turit�r Lighting District Feasibility Study Prepared by Wilidan Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Willdan Associates has been retained by the City of Santa Clarita to explore the feasibility and practicality of transferring the County of Los Angeles Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD 1867) and County Lighting District Landscaping and Lighting Assessment No. 1 (LLA -1) to the City. This executive summary enumerates our findings. More detailed support is included in the body of the report as well as a schedule identifying the timing of tasks required to complete fund balance transfers in time for the City to operate the District in FY 1997-1998. • Since 1968, various street lighting services in the City of Santa Clarita have been provided by a lighting maintenance district that is administered by Los Angeles County. The district, identified as CLMD 1867, includes ad valorem taxes as well as annual benefit assessments through LLA -1 that need to be levied each year by the legislative body. • Transferring CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 to City jurisdiction would increase the City's responsibilities toward lighting services and costs. In and of itself, the jurisdictional transfer would not increase assessments to property owners. • In future years, as areas are annexed into the City, annexation to the CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 benefit assessment would be a condition of annexation to the City. • The annual levy process for LLA -1 is dictated by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (1972 Act). Current legislation provides an assessment can be increased only if 50 percent of the property area does not protest the increase. • Proposition 218 would require the existing assessment level to be validated by a majority vote of votes cast, based on the lighting assessment value. The votes would be obtained by a mailed ballot to property owners within the LLA -1 boundary. Proposition 218 would also require a mailed ballot vote for any subsequent increases in the assessment. • CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 fund energy and maintenance expenses for lighting throughout the City where lighting exists. Certain areas of the City do not have lighting, but they have been paying the ad valorem tax. The maintenance of lighting fixtures is provided by Southern Califomia Edison Company. • Property owners in the City have not complained about existing service. However, property owners have requested lighting on certain unlit arterial streets within the City. • In recent years, CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 have collected sufficient revenue to cover expenses at the existing level of service. However, the districts have not funded decorative poles or any other enhancement to existing lighting fixtures. The County did include installation of 238 lights on wooden poles with overhead wiring along Soledad Canyon Road from Camp Plenty to Bouquet Canyon Road. • The fund balances for CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 should include a reserve to cover six months of operation. The County allowed the reserves to grow to more than a year and a half of operation in 1995. The current reserve fund balance is $2,365,000. Lightng Wismar FraslbWO str* Prepared by Willdan rissoefutrs :C'ofSaw Cts • Because of the continually growing reserves, and the lack of new lighting projects identified in the CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 area, the County reduced the benefit assessment rates from $12 per unit (FY 91/92) to $5 per unit in FY 92/93 through FY 94/95, and finally to the current $1 per unit beginning in FY 1995/96. • Even at the current reduced assessment rates, the existing reserve funds will not be reduced. The remaining balance in the reserve fund at the close of FY 1996/97 is projected to increase $77,400 to $2,442 ,190. • As a result, if the City were to accept the transfer of CLMD 1867 and LLA -1, the assessments will not need to be increased, and the existing reserves may be -used toward enhancements or new lighting installations. • Depending on the extent of the proposed installations and/or enhancements, the assessment rates for certain areas that specifically benefit may need to be increased. This information can be further quantified once specific improvements are identified. • Based on meetings with the County of Los Angeles, the City of Santa Clarita, and Willdan Associates, the transfer of jurisdiction could be effective July 1, 1997. If the City proceeds with the transfer, the fund balance remaining at year ending June 30, 1997, currently estimated to be $2,442,190, could be transferred to the City in four steps: 1) $100,000 would be transferred in February 1997 as an advance to cover the City's expenses for the transfer and FY 1997/98 levy; 2) $2,197,971 or about 90 percent of the remaining fund balance would be transferred by August 1, 1997; �• 3) $144,219, or the remaining fund balance would be transferred by October 1,1998; and tWAS! h&ktFrasi6xvS414y NrapW 5y MM" Assorintrr KAT@1XWJ011W The City of Santa Clarita began exploring the transfer of the County's Lighting Maintenance District 1867 (CLMD 1867) in 1995. The transfer of jurisdiction from County to City control seemed worth exploring for several reasons: 1) local control could be asserted over the level of assessments and the level of service., and 2) the County was unwilling to use available reserves for improvements needed within the District. Innarm. KIM MIMMUMBITs, , In 1968, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors included the Santa Clarita area as a separate zone in the newly established County Lighting Maintenance District. The District was formed pursuant to provisions of the California "Improvement Act of 1911 ". The Santa Clarita Zone known as County Lighting Maintenance District No. 1867 (CLMD 1867) is funded from ad valorem property tax revenue, with the rate set by Proposition 13. These funds are collected by the County Tax Collector and transmitted to the District Treasurer as they are received from property owners. In the late 1970's, it became apparent to the County that energy and labor cost increases were outpacing property tax revenues under Proposition 13, and the County Lighting Maintenance District would soon be. operating at a deficiL The community did not protest the County's program to provide flexible funding for the Districts by adopting an additional benefit assessment district County Lighting District LLA -1 which was formed in 1979 pursuant to provisions of the 1972 Act. This was not initiated by a developer's petition. This district was implemented by Board action when a diverse ownership existed in the district area. Therefore, in accordance with the protest provisions of the 1972 Act, so long as more than 50 percent written protest by property area was not received, the district could be formed. Our interpretation of the County's action is that County Lighting District LLA -1 is a consolidated district with the original CLMD 1867 district pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Streets and Highways Code Section 22605 which states: (d) The consolidation into a single assessment district formed under this part of any combination of two or more of any of the following: (1) An existing assessment district formed pursuant to this part. (2) An existing lighting, street lighting, maintenance, or tree planting district formed pursuant to Chapter 26 (commencing with Section 5820)... By the early 1990's, operating costs stabilized below revenues, and the District accumulated significant reserves. The ad valorem portion of the District generates about $1,028,000 annually. In order to reduce the .reserve fund, the County began reducing the benefit assessments in FY 1992/93. Currently, the District levy is set at $1.00 per unit which will generate $36,125 in FY 1996/97. Therefore the total annual revenue projected for FY 1996/97 for the District is $1,064,125 (1,028,000+36,125). The reserve fund balance projected for June 30, 1997 is $2,442,190. tlgsttAR bh&ktFeasibWostudy Prvpa� by MMM An"igt Pursuant to County policy, CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 provide street lighting services to meet the community's minimum needs. The County's policy does not allow for any variation to the basic services of lighting energy and maintenance as provided by Southern California Edison. In the past, the County has accepted decorative lighting fixtures provided by a developer, but the District will only fund wood poles and overhead service replacement. If the City wants decorative lighting or underground service to meet community standards, the City must pay for the upgrade cost under the County's policy. The primary District expense is for energy and maintenance which is billed by the Southern California Edison Company (Edison). All of the 9,800 lights in the City are in the District and are owned and maintained by Edison. 4"MRDIS ki lredsimv SA* Prtpand by w3i dan An"lnw :C* t0dam crtrim The primary District expense is for energy and maintenance which is billed by the Southern California Edison Company (Edison). Additionally, the County applies its administration expenses for general accounting, answering property owner and City questions, preparing the annual engineers report, and placing the assessment levy on the property tax rolls, etc. There have been no formal complaints from property owners regarding the maintenance of street lights, but there have been comments regarding efficiencies. Processing requests through the County adds another layer of government for developers and homeowners to deal with when processing tract maps or requesting changes to lighting. If jurisdiction is transferred to the City of Santa Clarita; processing street lighting improvements and enhancements could be streamlined. Existing Lighting Deficiencies CLMD 1867 lies completely within the city. The Boundary Map for the District is attached as Exhibit B.. While some of the newer developments in the City overlap with the ad valorem portion of the district, most of these areas are assessed through the benefit assessment portion of the District, LLA -1. The new areas have a more accurate inventory mapping system kept by Edison. Below is an inventory of the lights mapped in the District by lumen, light standard, and wiring type. The information is based on the recent Edison and County inventory, but is inconsistent with available lighting maps. An inventory will be conducted by City staff and Edison prior to the transfer. Further file research will be required to obtain an exact count of lights. The pole types are distributed 13 percent wood, 13 percent steel, and 74 percent marbelite. All of the lights have high pressure sodium bulbs. STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT LIGHTING HTINC INVENTORY CLMD 1867 & LLA -1 (Consolidated District) Projected Fiscal Year 1996/97 Lumen Quantity Pole Type Wiring Type 4,000 1 wood overhead 5,800 188 marbolite underground 9,500 7,010 wood, steel, marbolite overhead, underground 16,000 1,142 wood, marbolite overhead, underground 22,000 963 wood, marbolite overhead, underground 27,500 477 wood, marbolite overhead, underground Total 9,781 13%-w 13%-s, 74%-m 26%-0, 74%-u The entire central core of the City is included in the original CLMD 1867. This area is bounded on the north by Magic Mountain Parkway; on the west by Tourney Road,east along Soledad Canyon Road, and Oak Avenue; on the south by the Department of Water and Power easements to San Fernando Road and Highway 14; and on the west by Interstate 5. This area unfortunately does not have adequate lighting inventory maps. Many of the older areas are minimally lit, but they have been L1k"fig Dkvkt Ptastbtttp S&O Prtparrd by Wittdan.issocttttts ::C* of Saaw Clarim paying the ad valorem assessment since 1968. The remaining areas in the City that are developed and have lights are in LLA -1. These newer annexations coincide with individual developments. This portion is non-contiguous, with gaps occurring where there is mountainous, river, or undeveloped property. There are several areas along the City's major thoroughfares where street lights do not exist. The County may be willing to use sonic of the existing reserves toward installing these lights with wooden poles and overhead wiring. The County is more likely to be willing to use the reserves toward enhancements to existing lights within CLMD 1867. In the past, the County has been reluctant to use CLMD 1867 and LLA -1 surplus funds toward new installations within a district's boundaries. A Memorandum from their Deputy County, Counsel Public Works Division to the Traffic and Lighting Division dated August 28, 1995 states: "With respect to the construction of additional street lights, such construction is a proper rise of LLA assessments, again provdied that such additional lights are included in the annual engineer's report and are adopted by Board resolution. However, the construction of additional lights could not be funded from 1911 Act assessment[s] which are limited to maintenance of existing facilities." County Counsel does not adhere to the concept of consolidated revenues that we support, and that the City of Santa Clatita will have to verify with its City Attorney. In other cities, we have interpreted the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (1972 Act) Streets and Highways Code Section 22611 in combination with the previously sited Section 22605 to allow an agency to use funds on hand for purposes allowed by the 1972 Act. Section 22611 states: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the single assessment district resulting from a consolidation under this article shall assume all assets and liabilities of the districts consolidated and shall be entitled to all of the property tax revenues to which each of the separate districts involved in the consolidation would have been entitled had such districts not been so consolidated." The County has worked with the City in the past to provide new lighting installations, however, it is our understanding that additional assessments were levied to cover the cost. Also, the County has annexed new areas into its District and maintains developer installed decorative lighting. Regarding new decorative lighting, the County Counsel's letter of August 28, 1995 states, "With respect to the replacement of existing street lights on woodlsteel poles with concrete poles with either overhead or undergound wiring, it is our conclusion that funds derived from either LLA or 1911 Act (CLMD LiA"M MvirtF+ftsibxly study Pn+parrd by MWax Assariaws 18671 assessments may be used, provided certain procedural requirements are met." If the City wants to use the existing $2.3 million in excess funds toward new installations, the City will need to take over administration of CLMD 1867 and LLA -1. (see Appendix D ) Except for the requirement that all new developments install street lights as a condition of development approval and the policy of installing street lights as an adjunct to major street openings or widenings, there is no established City criteria for the installation of street lights. In 1994, a priority list was prepared for street light installation for the major roads within the City. The priority was based on 1) the degree of pedestrian traffic, 2) location of schools, parks, churches, and hospitals, 3) degree of vehicular traffic, 4) types of businesses and whether areas are commercial or industrial, 5) timing of road development. The following roads were listed as requiring lighting installation: Road Seco Canyon Road Soledad Canyon Road Bouquet Canyon Road Soledad Canyon Road t Bouquet Canyon Road Soledad Canyon Road Bouquet Canyon Road San Femando Road Valencia Boulevard McBean Parkway Newhall Ave Sierra Hwy Sierra Hwy Valencia Blvd Orchard Village Road Limits Bouquet Cyn to City limits % Lighted 10 Sierra Hwy to Vilna Ave. 0 City Limits to Urbandale 50 Camp Plenty to Bouquet 100 Seco Cyn to Soledad 10 Vilna Ave to Camp Plenty 50 Alomogordo to Seco Cyn 0 Newhall to SR -14 50 Magic Mtn to Bouquet Cyn 10 Orchard to Tournament 0-50 Lyons Ave to San Fernando 50 Placenta to Via Princessa 50 Soledad to City Limits 25 Rockwell Cyn to McBean 50 McBean to Lyons Ave 0 1 In June 1996, Edison through County direction, completed the construction of 238 -- 27,500 lumen and 4 -- 9,500 lumen medium full cutoff lights on wood poles with overhead wiring. Increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic on many of the roads listed above as well as the City's new bike trails has changed the lighting needs since the study was performed. It is likely that there is now an increased need for lighting on many of the above -listed streets. • In addition, there are older portions of the City that have overhead wires on wood poles such as Soledad Canyon Road and portions of San Fernando Road that the City may like to replace with newer underground services. Finally, there are areas in the City that have no lights. If the City wants to construct these to the marbolite/underground standard, a transfer of jurisdiction is necessary. All of these enhancements may be funded with excess reserve funds or through increases to the L11"Pts i)k&kt reatsslbllld Saxdy Prtmmd by W'il7rtaa Anwintes : OfsanmCkrim benefit assessments as discussed in the next section. t The City's standard for lighting installation, if administered by the City, is anticipated to include 70 foot staggered spacing on both sides of each road, so that on one side of the road a light would be located every 140 feet. All new fixtures would be high pressure sodium, full cut-off bulbs, marbolite poles with underground wiring, but existing lighting would not be replaced unless the new light standard spacing requires the relocation of an existing light to maintain the 70 foot spacing. Upon incorporation, theCityaccepted the County standards and will continue to use the I.E.S. or Illuminating Engineering Society standards.. Both the design and the cost of installation can be included in the District assessment In the past, the County has absorbed the cost of design and district formation costs when new lights have been petitioned by property owners. Those areas within the CLMD 1867 boundaries which have been paying ad valorem taxes for years, but do not have street lights are excellent candidates for new installations. However, some areas currently not lit may not be in the District and would need to be annexed into the District. Some consideration would need to be made for the appropriateness of using reserves to fund these new installations since other property owners have paid for the installation of lights on their streets. It may be that because the streets in question are major thoroughfares, it would be easy to justify spreading the cost of the improvements to all property owners in the district, and using the reserves then to offset these costs. However, this has become more difficult to justify since the passage of Prop 218 is passed. Prop 218 is property -specific as to benefit and limits the assessment of improvements that are of benefit to the general public. The areas listed above may be annexed into the existing district concurrent with the transfer of the District and the FY 1997/98 levy. This can be initiated by property owner petition or by the City. The rest of the proceeding would be identical to the schedule listed at the conclusion of this report The Engineer's Report would include a section entitled, "Annexation Areas" and would discuss the details of locations, improvements, and costs for the area. L11"R9 t; b*t hrasibmv six4y Prepad by Witbiax Anodatrs ["IftTIMMUM W41 If the City agrees to transfer jurisdiction of the District, the City will be accepting the financial, contractual, and political responsibilities associated with it. Based upon discussions with City staff and the following analysis, significant additional City needs can be funded into the foreseeable future without exceeding the rates previously collected by the County. Mt OlUn ATIM-WITET, at t The District budget for FY 1996/97 prepared by the County of Los Angeles is shown below. STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET CLMD 1867 & LLA-1.(Consolidated District) Projected Fiscal Year 1996/97 Description Amount Energy and Maintenance 1036 70 Pole Replacements detail not available .Extraordinary Costs detail not available Administration: Projected FY 1996/97 Property Tax & Asmt Receipts @$1/unit Department, Division, and Section Overhead 8,320 Direct Labor and Expenses 12,640 Other Governmental Agency 2,600 LLAD Engine . n/Administration 42;790 Total Administration 66,350 Total FY 1996/97 Operating Cost i S1.102.620 1 The projected operating cost is pursuant to the County actual budget for FY 1995/96 of $1,021,960. Southern California Edison recommended a 1.4% inflation factor for FY 199647 or $1,036,270. Three sources of funds are available to pay the budgeted items: 1) ad valorem taxes collected through property tax bills each year, 2) benefit assessments levied on the property for FY 1996/97 collected on the 1996/97 property tax bills, and 3) reserve balances. In addition, each of these funds earns interest, estimated below at 4 percent while funds are on hand. STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT REVENUE SOURCES CLMD 1867 & LLA -1 (Consolidated District) Projected Fiscal Year 1996/97 Description Ad Valorem Taxes Assessments Reserves Total Funds Beginning Balance 7/1/96 $0 $0 $2,364,813 $2,364,813 Projected FY 1996/97 Property Tax & Asmt Receipts @$1/unit $1,028,000 $36,125 $0 $1,064,125 Interest Earnings $20,560 $723 $94,592 $115,875 Projected FY 1996/97 Expense ($1,048,560) 1 ($36,848) ($17,212) ($1,102,620) r4lu eg i)dvktrMsibWO So* fWpar by W W*# Assciatrs . Ofsam c1drift Ending Balance 6/30/97 $0 I $0 $2,442,190 $2.442.190 Therefore, using the current projections of energy and maintenance cost and County administration costs, the existing reserve fund will continue to grow in spite of reduced assessment rates. The interest earnings on the reserves exceed the amount required to pay expenses, and the District will end the year with $2,442,190 in reserves, a net gain of $77,377. The County's reserve fund, according to the provisions of.the 1972 Act, should be equivalent to about six months of operating the districts or half of the projected annual budget of $1,102,620. The reserve fund for the District is unusually high and should be reduced to an appropriate level. In addition, there are no gross deficiencies in the District. Therefore, if the City were to take over jurisdiction of the District, it would be reasonable to expect that District has adequate revenue to cover existing and ongoing expenses. First Year Budgeting and Assessment Levy Looking ahead to Fiscal Year 1997/98, the City would need to establish a budget for the year and determine the resulting assessment levy. The existing reserve funds will be minimally affected this year, and will increase $77,377 from the current level by the end of FY 1996/97. The City needs to consider the variables in the ongoing budget based on the itv'a projected costs rather than the County's projections of revenue, expenses, and interest earnings. The Edison rates will be negotiated by City staff with Edison prior to the transfer; however, administrative costs and interest earnings may be adjustable. Edison projects that the electric rates upon which the energy and maintenance budget items are based will not increase for Fiscal Year 1997/98. Therefore, the only costs to examine are the administration charges. The City can fund the cost of this Feasibility Study through the District as well as all staff time to perform work associated with the District tracking, billing, operation and maintenance. The City can expect the following charges: Finance Department Charges for Edison and Consultant Billing $10,000 Public Works Field Work/Developer Monitoring 20,000 Assessment Levy and Administration (City and Consultant Charges) 20,000 First Year Feasibility Study 35,000 First Year Setup 15.000 Total Administration Costs Projected for FY 1997/98 $100,000 ( see the attched chart for tasks and costs for staffing ) The staffing requirement would not involve a full-time position, but would require staff that could combine this effort with other special districts projects' effort. In addition, consultants can be used for most of the activities. There are no maintenance contracts to administer, and mainly consultant and SCE billing and tracking to monitor. The first year cost of administering the District will be higher than last year's administrative cost. This cost can be offset by the reserve fund balance, and still leave substantial funds available to provide other lighting improvements. In future years, the City's administrative cost of approximately $50,000 compares favorably with the County's cost of LfgRNxg i)isr►3et;�'rasibittry Sttt�y prep vd Dy WiWax Assaeiatrx I civ of Seam Clarim $66,000 budgeted for FY 1996/97. LIRUxg IJi *kt Frasimo Stu++{y Fnptftd by Wiltd a dssorie a As shown above, the District generates adequate revenues to fund the lighting improvements and services provided by the County within the boundaries of the District. There are no anticipated budget effects if the City takes over existing operation and maintenance of the District. However, if the City takes over administration of the District, the City may include additional improvements and new lighting installation which the County is unwilling to provide: The following projection demonstrates how existing reserves may be used to fund design and installation of lighting improvements over the next five years. Funding for the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1, the 1972 Act "Assessment" portion of the District, requires an annual engineer's report to determine funding needs of the District and the direct cost benefit to each property owner. If rates are not increased over the next five years, and if the reserve is brought down to an appropriate level, excess funds will be available to fund increased operation and maintenance costs or lighting enhancements. STREET LIGHTING. DISTRICT FIVE Y AR PROJECTION CLMD 1867 & LLA -1 (Consolidated District) Budget Item FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 SCE O&M $1,036,270 $1,036,270 $1,036,270 $1,036,270 $1,036,270 City Administration 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Enhancements, 481,215 512,229 493,242 474,256 0 Total Budget $1,617,485 $1598,499 $1,579,512 $1560,526 $1,086 270 District Revenues $1,064,125 $1,064,125 $1,064,125 $1,064,125 $1,064,125 Interest Earnings, 78,701 59,715 40,729 21,742 21,725 Total Revenues $1,142,826 $1,123,840 $1,104,854 $1,085,867 $1 085,650 Reserve FY Beginning Balance $2,442,190 $1,967,531 $1,492,872 $1,018,214 $543,555 Reserve Drawdown 474,659 1 474,659 1 474,659 1 474,659 420 Reserve FY End Balance $1,967,531 $1,492,872 $1,018,214 $543,555 $543,135 1 The projected operating cost is pursuant to the County actual budget for FY 1995/96 of $1,021,960. Southern California Edison recommended a 1.4% inflation factor for FY 1996-97 or $1,036,270. Edison has said that rates will not increase going into FY 1997/98. 2 Enhancements may include upgraded lighting fixtures, installation of new lights, the cost of first year set up, absorption of increases in operation and maintenance costs, or unforeseen costs. 3 District revenues from ad valorem and assessments are held constant over the five year period assuming rates are held constant. Any increases from ad valorem taxes are assumed to offset increases in City administration costs. 4 The interest earnings are calculated at 4 percent of the ending balance of the reserve fund. These costs can be assumed to offset increases in 0&M and administration. 5 The Reserve balance reflects an even draw down over four years and excludes future interest earnings. In actuality, the drawdown could be faster. but we would not recommend extending the process more than five years. L1gdHreg bisrrirt reasibxv Steely PmpwW by Wits m AssorkW . of SnnW CturUd If the City wants to fund more enhancements, the specific areas that benefit from the enhancements can be assessed for the amount necessary. This would require mailed notice, a protest hearing, and a mailed ballot approva due to the passage of Prop. 2181. Long -Term Impact of Existing Assessment Legislation and Proposition 21R The 1972 Act provides the flexibility to allow the City Council to change services and funding levels to meet changing community needs, utilizing annual update provisions. Accordingly, under current legislation, the rate can be set pursuant to SHC 22620 up to the highest rate charged in any previous year without a mailed notice to property owners. If the assessment is increased, mailed notice and a public meeting and public hearing to hear protests are required- The City Council may adopt the assessment rate and/or different services that are properly. advertised, providing property owners representing over 50 percent of the District (by land area) do not file written protest prior to closing the public hearing. If a majority protest is received, the increase must be abandoned, but the previously approved rate may still be levied. An additional long-term fiscal consideration is the impact Proposition 218 will have on the City's ability to levy benefit assessments. Proposition 218 would affect general tax, fee, and assessment procedures. The provisions of Proposition 218 became effective November 6, 1996. Changes specific to assessment districts like the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting Districts include the way direct benefits are assessed, the computation of property owner protest, the ability to fund items that benefit the general public, and the formation schedule. Regardless of which public agency administers the District, a mailed ballot election will be required and results must be received by July 1, 1997 to continue collecting the benefit assessment portion of the revenues. The District can only be implemented if a majority of the votes received are in favor of the district, and the majority is measured by the proportional financial obligation of property owners. "Financial obligation" refers to the lighting assessment a property would need to pay. Proposition 218 does not effect the collection of 1911 Act ad valorum property taxes. The District will have to comply with the following requirements: All parcels receiving a special benefit from the funded improvements and operation and maintenance must be identified, including public agency parcels. The proportional special benefit each parcel receives as well as the reasonable cost of that benefit as applied to each parcel must be clearly demonstrated. Public agency parcels may not be excluded unless it can be shown they receive no special benefit. All assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a California registered professional engineer. Property owners must receive written notice of the proposed assessment amount for their parcel, the total assessment amount, the term of the assessment, the reason for the assessment, the method used to calculate the assessment, a summary of the procedures including a statement of the .effect of a protest, the date time and location of a public Ltgbffxg bisa{a Ptesibili{Y Snuty Prtpa>rd by Witfdas Associutrs C* qs clari t hearing, and a ballot to allow people to indicate name, parcel identification, and support or opposition to the proposed assessment, together with the agency's address for receipt of any such ballot once completed by any owner. The notice needs to be mailed at least 45 days prior to the public hearing. This is in addition to the existing 45 day notice and protest hearing procedure. _ The agency must then hold a public hearing where it considers all protests and tabulates the ballots received. If there is a majority protest, that is, if more ballots are cast against the district than for the district, the assessment cannot be imposed. The ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the properties in the district. _ In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden of proof shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and the assessment is proportional to the benefit received. Whether under County or City jurisdiction, property owners in the District must approve assessment rates by mailed ballot prior to July 1, 1997 to continue receiving revenues. Additionally, the County's engineers report and assessment benefit analysis will require revisions to comply with the new standards. Accordingly, administrative cost will be higher. According to informal discussions with County staff, the County will comply with election provisions of Proposition 218 for Districts under their jurisdiction. However, county general funds are not available for these uses if property owners elect to withhold funding, and services will be reduced or terminated. Fortunately, 1911 Act Property Taxes should carry basic street lighting services, at least through the near future. URA901r i b*tI'ft."O S&O Pmpartd by Wiftdm dxroetatrs in DRUM Irmliffm Mai DOWN OCIEWNR&I 1 Streets and Highways Code section.5851, pertaining to the 1911 Act, and sections 22612 and 22605(b), pertaining to the 1972 Act, provide a straight -forward process of requesting by resolution transfer from the County. Pursuant to the aforementioned SHC sections and since these are restricted funds, all District assets will be transferred to the City on the mutually agreed upon date that allows an orderly transfer (i.e., 60 days after July 1, 1997). California Streets and Highways Code Section 5851, pertaining to the 1911 Act and Section 22612, pertaining to the 1972 Act, provide that when a district is totally within a city's boundary, which is the circumstance with the Districts discussed herein, the City Council may request by resolution that the County Board of Supervisors transfer district jurisdiction to the City Council. Since district funds are restricted to the area they were collected from (Santa Clarita) and for uses authorized by the 1911 and 1972 Acts, all district assets are also transferred to the City for District use. County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) 1867 and the consolidated benefit assessment district named City of Santa Clarita Zone of LLA -1 are completely within the corporate boundaries of Santa Clarita. Revenues are collected and maintained separately from the rest of the County Districts and special assessment funds. Upon jurisdictional transfer of CLMD 1867 all revenues and reserves associated with the District may be transferred pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code. However, the County considers the Santa Clarita Zone of LLA -1 to be a noncontiguous part of the countywide Landscape and Lighting District. Accordingly, this requires a Board of Supervisors public hearing to detach the LLA -1 to the City (SHC 22605 (b)) as shown in Resolution "A" in Attachment A. In addition, two -other resolutions will be required to complete the transfer process. As shown in Resolution `B" in Appendix A, a joint resolution for the transfer of jurisdiction is required, as well as, a joint resolution authorizing a transfer of revenues specifically for the FY 1997/98 ad valorem revenues and the transfer of reserves for the District (see Resolution "C" in Appendix A). A fourth resolution establishes the City's acceptance of the LLA -1, Santa Clarita Zone District. In the past, the Board of Supervisors hearings have been a matter of formality, with no public comments and unanimous Board votes approving the change of jurisdiction. There is no reason to expect otherwise with Santa Clarita's transfer. ORMWNll 1n, ni The resolutions provide that all assets be transferred to the City effective July 1, 1997 or under some circumstances earlier. The resolutions also ensure that all future property taxes collected after July 1, 1997 will be conveyed to the City. In addition to the joint: resolutions, a notification of the jurisdictional transfer must be sent to the State Board of Equalization so that the ad valorem portion of District revenues will be reassigned from the County to the City. The State requires a form letter along with the signed joint resolutions to make the reassignment of tax revenues received. Because USAUXg MvieffeasibmtY S&O PmpuW by WiWmAss"i«fts chy of son& ckrim the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los Angeles resolutions will not be prepared by December 1, 1996, tax proceeds for fiscal year 1997/98 will continue to go directly to the County requiring a subsequent transfer to the City. The City will need to monitor the apportionment of tax funds to . ensure the ad valorem portion of District revenues are transferred throughout fiscal year 1997/98. The Resolutions provide for: 1) A transfer of all ad valorem revenues for FY 1997/98 within one month of the County's receipt of each apportionment. 2) After FY 1997/98 all proceeds should automatically be apportioned to the City by the State Board of Equalization. The District has a substantial amount of funds in reserve. County Counsel has determined that these proceeds may only be used for. the improvements designated by the District, or lighting operation, maintenance, and improvements within the District boundaries. The method of transfer for the reserve balance is established in Resolutions `B'.' and "C", and will coincide with the effective date of transfer of the District. In addition, the Resolutions provide for a transfer of a portion of the proceeds prior to the effective date of City control, to allow the City to pay start-up costs associated with taking over the District. The Resolutions provide for: 1) $100,000 or approx. 4% upon resolution approval by the Coutn. Payable no later lthan 30 days from approval. 2) 90% or approx. $2,198,971 as of the effective date of the transfer, July 1, 1997; Payable no later than August 1, 1997. 3) All retraining funds including reserve and excess FY 1996/97 revenues. This amount minirnal and required to pay July Edison bill received in August, 1997 and maintain an open account until the close of FY98. Payable no later than 10-1-98. In addition to ensuring the transfer of ad valorem funds, the City must establish the fiscal year 1997- 1998 annual benefit assessment. The procedures for the levy are established in the 1972 Act, and require Council action prior to August 10, 1997. The City may process the annual assessment concurrent with the transfer of the District to City jurisdiction. However, the City must order an engineer's report, hold a public hearing after giving 45 days notice, adopt the FY 1997-98 District assessment, and submit a roll to the County Auditor -Controller prior to August 10, 1997. The result of this aciton will direct the special district assessment to the City. LIRM R ll"&ktl8'edabWQ study P"parrd by W Urian Assceratrs C* of Stmu Ckrift In addition, Proposition 218 requires a mailed ballot election would be required for this district. This action requires an additional 45 day period of notice, public hearing, and mailed ballot. The District could only be implemented if a majority of the votes received are in favor of the district, and the majority is measured by the proportional financial obligation of property owners. The following schedule indicates the timing of activities that need to take place to effectuate the transfer. Task Responsible Party Due Date t;.z.e -Review of Feasibility Report and Resolutions City/County IV96 T t � 4 Cities adoption of Joint Resolutions Council/Board 11/96 — Detailed Inspection of Lighting Improvements City/County/Willdan Establish Fund Account for District City Hire Consultant to Prepare to Administer District City First Transfer of Reserve Funds (25%)?? County FY 1997/98 Engineer's Report Draft Prepared including, Willdan budget, assessment rates, improvement description, assessment methodology, assessment roll Consider Use of Excess -Reserve Fund Moneys City/Willdan City Council Resolution of Intention-9179TLevy City/Willdan Public Meeting 14�� i ;. City/Willdan L�y --Public Hearing City/Willdan Ott Ballot Mailed City/Willdan `t Public Hearing ' I^� � City/Willdan Ballots Counted — �L� kC�`F` 1�' ( C City/Willdan Second Transfer of Funds/Effective Date of Transfer ✓ County n Begin Administering Edison Payments City/Willdan Begin Design of Enhancements (e.g., installations, City/Willdan decorative fixtures, etc.) Submit Assessments to Auditor -Controller Willdan Receipt of Last County Transfer County Begin Receiving Property Tax Apportionments City/County and transfer ad valorem from County to City 12/96' } f 12/96 12/96 i L finmrietf'easibilioySo* fttp&rrd by Wiildaa Assoeintrs .00 qtSdM Chnita Begin FY 1997/98 Enhancement Improvements Authorize Preparation of FY 1998/99 Engineer's Report City/Willdan 3/1/97 City 3/1/97 Lllhd tgUittttetIr+pnsibt VSh,dy Pragarrd by MOdt x Assoc aW ' . Ofsam Chtruff The jurisdictional transfer of the County Lighting Maintenance District CLMD 1867 to the City has the following pros and cons. �A. 1. Transferring the District to City jurisdiction provides more local control in that residents can request service from local City staff instead of less local County staff. As a result, maintenance issues are likely to be resolved more quickly and with less confusion. 2. Residents are more likely to attend public meetings and public hearings at the City than at the County. 3. Improvements such as upgraded lighting and new installation can be funded through the District. This can result in an effective use of existing reserves. 4. The City instead of the County can decide the use of the District's existing $2.3 million in reserves. 5. Their are no gross deficiencies in the system. 6. There is adequate revenue at existing rates to continue the existing operation and maintenance while paying for City administration for at least the next five years. 7. The ad valorem portion of District revenues covers most of the existing operation and maintenance charges ($1,028,000 of $1,065,000 total revenue in FY 1996/97). This portion of the revenues is not affected by Proposition 218. rk", M, 1. The City will take on the political responsibility for a District created by the County 2. There do not appear to be any gross deficiencies in the system, but any future problems or unexpected costs will have to be handled by the City. 3. Proposition 218 requires a mailed ballot and a simple majority vote to continue collecting the benefit assessment portion of the District revenues. There is an increased move toward increased property owner participation in these types of districts which will increase administrative costs as public education becomes more the norm. LigRNxg VkIJ Fet FraribX0 Stady Pftp W by tit Ud*n Assn kft DRAFT i ESOLt) l ION NO. % A" A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REQUESTING DETACHMENT OF COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -15 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ZONE WHEREAS, County Lighting District LLA -1 City of Santa Clarita ;done, was formed by and 6 under the Jurisdiction Of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles under and pursuant to the provisions of part 2, Division 13 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and WHEREAS, County Lighting District LLA -1, City of Santa Clarita Zone, Is contained entirely within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita and was formed as a Consolidated District with County Lighting Maintenance District (CL;MD) No, 1867; and WHEREAS, Section 22605 of Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles may order the detachment of territory from an existing assessment district formed under Part 2, Division 1S of the California Streets and highways Code. NOW, `I'HEREFO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY `IND, DETERMINE,, RESOLVED ,AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby guest the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to order the detachment of County Lighting District LLA -I, City of Santa Clarita Zone, from the remainder of the County Lighting District LLA -1 pursuant to Section 22605 of Part 2, Division 1S of the California Street and :Highways Code. Likkaft Mullet FmsiD V Sb* PrepdrW by N'ii7dm Aa"iaft C* of Sam Cts RESOLUTION TION NCI, "A" 1�ajp 3 PASSM APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this Mayor ATTEST, City Clerk Attorney AYES-. NOES.. AESENCt ABSTAIM day of APPROVED AS TO IFtiltivlt 1996. , City 'The foregoing resolution was on the day of 1996, passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angelos, State of California. APPROVED AS TO FORM DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel JOANNE STURGES, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles Deputy Lkvisaio F"siMIQ Stu* Pmpwrd by WiMm Assurkin Chy qtsdaft Ckrka Deputy UgAmw Modd rMubdivSk* Prepmd by w,uaam Anodwa C*VfS Ckrim DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. %1B11 ,A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARTTA FOR THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (CLMD) NO. 113117 FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO THE CITY OF SANTA CLARI TA .-WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarity by Resolution No. "B" adopted 1996, has requested and consented to the transfer fmm the County to the City of jurisdiction over "County. Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867 located within the territorial boundaries of the incorporated City and has authorized the Mayor and City Manager to accept the transfer on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita and the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the transfer of this District; and WHEREAS, Section 5851 of the Streets and Highways Code provides that if the whole district formed pursuant to the lmpmvement Act of 1911, Division 7 of the 'California Streets and Highways Code, is included within one city, upon receipt of a resolution of the city requesting transfer of jurisdiction over the distrkt:and the funds of the district, jurisdiction over the district shall be transferred by resolution of the Roam of Supervisors to the city and the funds of the district shall be paid to the treasurer of the city to be used by the city for the benefit of the district, and WHKREAS, the boundaries of CLMD No. 1867 are located entirely within the corporate boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. NOW, 'THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, S'TA'TE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SyA�TN`�,yA��CLARITA DO HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE5 RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L That the City Council requests transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita agree to the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita effective July 1,19W, A SECTION I That the City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to accept the transfer on behalf of the City of Santa Clarita and the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to complete the transfer of this District. U&4Rg thuda Ptm Afflo Starts+ Prtprd by Mdm Assn k*s O'S Ckrim RESOLUTION NO. I<pl„ Dalt 3 SECTION 3, That upon the eft'ective date of the transfer of Jurisdiction CLMD No, t867 shall be designated "Santa Clarita Lighting Maintenance District No, i . " SECTION Q. That all assets .for CLMD No,1867 will be irans%rred from the County to the City within 60 days of the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction from the County to the City through two transferphe fust occurring on the effective date of the transfer for approximately 30 percent of the amount in reserve, that is, $400,OM, the second occurring within BO days of the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction .for the remainder of the District's funds, x 04ft ntst d )1rastbt V stR6 PmPared by Willdan A=loft ulgaf Sam ckrift I RESOLUTION NO. "B" Page 3 PASSE% AI PROVE1% AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clarita City Council this —day of ,1996. , Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attorney AYE& NOES,% ABSENT- ABSTAIM APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City The foregoing resolution was on the day of I 1996, passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Afiplm State of California. APPROVED AS TO FORM DE W17 W, CUNTON County Counsel ......................... Deputy JOANNE STURGES, Executive Offlew - Clerk of the Baud of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles Deputy Lk"ft Dwwd Ftwik* Sh* Prtpemd by Md" AswidW Cay q'Sahm Ckrift DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. "C" A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CLOY OF SANTA CLARIT.A APPROVING AND ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RESULTING FROM THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER COUNTY LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT (CL?vlD) NM l WHEREAS, pursuant to Section gg of the Revenue and Taxation Code, prior to the effective date of any jurisdictional change the governing bodies of all agencies whose service areas or service responsibilities would be altered by such change must determine the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged between the affected agencies and approve and accept the negotlated exchange of property tax revenues by resolution, but if the affected agency is a special district, the Board of Supervisors must negotiate on behalf of the district, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and the City Council of the City of Santa Clardta have determined that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over County Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867 is as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGXLES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, .AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ILO HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS,, SECTION IA The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue resulting .from the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County to the City is approved and accepted. SECTION 2, Pursuant to Resolution No, "ll," upon the effective date of the transfer of jurisdiction over CLMD No. 1867 from the County to the Clty, CLMD No. 1867 shall thereafter be designated "Santa Clardta sighting Maintenance District No, 2,11 SECTION I For each fiscal year commencing on and after July 1, 1997, 'or after the effective date of this jurisdictional change, whichever'ls later, all property tax revenue received by Santa Clarity bighting Maintenance District No. 2 (formerly County fighting Maintenance District (CLMD) No. 1867) shall be transferred to the City of Santa Clarita, SECTION 4. No additional transfer of property tax revenues shall be made to or from any other taxing agency(its) as a result of this jurisdictional change. L4tkAmg District fttutbd#Q Stu* tW and by Mildan Aswighs cv ofsam ckri tt RESOLUTION Nth,'%C' pqt 2 PASSFA APPROVM AND ADOPTED by the Santa Clarita City Council this .._......-._ --- -day of 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attorney AYES- l`lOES, ABSENT. ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO E'tIRM: City The foregoing resolution was an the tiny of 1i11)6, passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. APPROVED AS TO FORM DE Wi T W. CUNTCN County Counsel Deputy IOANNE S'Ct RGES, Executive Officer Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angetes Deputy L'i hwq D1swd Frasibi w study Pmpdrrd by tS lWa* Anueintrs