The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0601 CC REG ITEM 08DFROM: DATE: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The Honorable City Council ITEM 8 . :D. MMUMPOW CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of ACTION BY: '12, . Ld6&e2.- Mary K. Lindley, Director of Parks, Recrion and Community Services', May 25, 2005 (CC Meeting of June 1, 2005) SUBJECT: Adopt the Resolution Approving the Final Assessment Engineer's Report for the Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Improvement Assessment District and Confirming the Levy Amount for Fiscal Year 2005/06 SUMMARY The City Council is beir the continuation of the Improvement Assessment testimony, close the Engineer's Report, and assessment levy. BACKGROUND ig asked to Parks and District Public He adopt a open the Public Hearing on Recreation Maintenance and for FY 2005/06, receive aring, approve the final resolution confirming the In July 1999, the City successfully established an assessment district for the maintenance and improvement of City parks. The District was initiated by the Council to provide funding in place of AD 85 -1 (Park Maintenance Assessment District) , which was disbanded in July 1998 as a result of Proposition 218. The current Maintenance District is based on a "special" assessment. This means that the City assesses property owners for that portion of park maintenance and improvement activities that generate a "special" benefit. All activities that generate a "general" benefit must be funded from non - assessment revenues (typically General Fund and Park Improvement Fund). The Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Improvement Assessment District (Assessment District) includes 15 improved parks and one undeveloped park (Magnolia Park). The amount of the M: \MLindley \Assessment Dist \final engineer report 3 2005 06 6 -1 -05 ccagd.doc 0 Honorable City Council June 1, 2005 Page 2 assessment levied to property owners may only increase by the Cost of Living factor (CPI) for the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, and not more than 3 percent in any year. In situations when the CPI exceeds 3 percent, the remaining difference can be carried over to a subsequent year. On February January 5, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005 -2277 indicating its intent to continue the assessment for FY 2005/06 and directing the preparation of the Engineer's Report. On May 4, 2005, the Council approved the Engineer's report and set June 1, 2005 as the date for a Public Hearing DISCUSSION The City Council is being asked to receive public testimony on the continuation of the assessment and to set the assessment levy amount. The Assessment District includes all 16 City parks, Arroyo Vista Community Center, and the Serenata Trail. The Engineer's Report contains a determination regarding the percentage of benefit deemed "special" and the percentage deemed "general ", generated from the maintenance and improvement of City parks and recreation facilities. The percentage figure identified by the Engineer is 25 percent "general" benefit and 75 percent "special" benefit. This percentage is then applied to the total park maintenance and improvement budget. Under Proposition 218, the City can only assess property owners for the 75 percent portion of the budget related to "special" benefits. Although 75 percent is identified as providing "special" benefit, and consistent with previous years, it is proposed that property owners be assessed for only approximately 20 percent of the total park maintenance budget, which is less a third of the special benefit costs. Appropriations from the General Fund and Park Improvement Fund sources will comprise the remaining approximate 80 percent of the total budget for FY 05/06. The Engineer's Report approved on May 5 identifies all properties in Moorpark by type. A value has been assigned for each type of property, with single family residential unit having a value of 1.00 (SFE) . A value for all other property types is assigned based on the SFE. The equivalent value is based on a formula that uses the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at, or otherwise use a property. Specifically, the Engineer finds SFE values as follows: W e--%" v '3, Honorable City Council June 1, 2005 Page 3 Single Family Residential 1.00 Condominium .80 Multi - Family Residential .78 Mobile Homes .65 Commercial .70 Office 1.90 Shopping Center .70 Industrial .70 Self Storage or Parking Lot .03 In regards to undeveloped developed a three - tiered ra assessed at .25 of its industrial, commercial, et and engineering plans have it will be assessed at its rate, and vacant propert approved will have a SFE ec for that property type unti (per dwelling unit) AN AN \\ %A AN AN (per 1/5 of acre) \\ AN AN , AN vacant property, the Engineer has to structure. Vacant property will be equivalent SFE (for residential, c.). Once a development application been submitted for vacant property, SFE at a rate of .35 of the developed y for which development has been uivalent of .65 of the developed rate L fully developed. Park Maintenance and Improvement Budget The Engineer's Report addresses the estimated revenue to be generated by the assessment (approximately $582,879) contingent on the Council's approval of the proposed rate. This is approximately $30,979 more in assessment revenue than was anticipated for FY 2004/05. The report also identifies the non - assessment contribution, which is noted in the Report as City Contribution. Consistent with Proposition 218, the City covers all costs associated with park maintenance activity expenditures that generate "general" benefits (these activities comprise approximately 25 percent of the budget) . Additionally, the City traditionally covers a significant portion of the cost associated with expenditures that generate "special" benefits. The remaining costs associated with "special" benefits are covered by the revenue collected from the assessed levy. The proposed FY 2005/06 Park Assessment District budget figure of $3,639,297 (an increase of approximately $113,497 from FY 2004/05) includes $1,390,805 for operation and maintenance (approximately the same as FY 2004/05) and $2,248,492 for capital improvements (an increase of approximately $1,139,065 from FY 2004/05) . The capital improvement expenditure increase Honorable City Council June 1, 2005 Page 4 results primarily from the construction of the following proposed projects: Poindexter Park expansion ($309,465), AVRC gym expansion ($850,000), Magnolia Park ($500,000), Campus Park restroom replacement ($120,000), and Tierra Rejada Park playground equipment replacement ($90,000). FY 2005/06 Park Asst. District Budget Summary Proposed Expenditures Proposed Funding Operation /Maintenance $1,390,805 Capital Park Projects $2,128,492 Total Expenditure Budget $3,519,297 Assessment Levy $582,879 General Fund $755,754 Park Improvement $1,556,169 Redevelopment Bonds (Magnolia Park) $535,000 State Park Bond (Poindexter Park Exp) $89,495 Total Revenues $3,519,297 The budget figures contained in the Engineer's Report differ slightly from the figures in the draft budget document that will be presented to the City Council. The difference is in the overhead costs charged to the park maintenance budget. This is a result of needing to finalize the Engineer's Report prior to completing the City Budget. Assessment Rate The assessment district was adopted with a CPI cap of 3 percent. However, the approved assessment language allows the City to carry over any difference in the CPI that exceeds 3 percent to the following year, as long as it adheres to the cap in subsequent years. The history of the adjusted assessment levy is as follows: 0/,,4-) 6A v -& 1J Honorable City Council June 1, 2005 Page 5 Fiscal CPI Period CPI Levy Carryover Year Adjustment Adjustment 2000/01 Dec 1998 - 2.3% 2.3% 0 Dec 1999 2001/02 Dec 1999 - 3.7% .7% .7% Dec 2000 2002/03 Dec 2000 - 2.1% 2.8% 0 Dec 2001 2003/04 Dec 2001 - 3.7% 3% .7% Dec 2002 2004/05 Dec 2002 - 1.8% 2.5% 0 Dec 2003 2005/06 Dec 2003 - 4.39% 3% 1.39% Dec 2004 The CPI increase calculation pertaining to the FY 2005/06 assessment (December 2003 - December 2004) is 4.39 percent. Because of the 3 percent cap on rate adjustments, the City can only raise the assessment by 3 percent and carry the 1.39 percent over to FY 2006/07. The proposed SFE assessment rate and levy for FY 2005/06 is $45.94. STAFF RECODMENDATION (Roll Call Vote) 1) Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and close the public hearing; and 2) adopt Resolution No. 2005- Attachment: A - Resolution V a