HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2025 0115 CC REG ITEM 09BCITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of January 15, 2025
ACTION PROVIDED DIRECTION TO
STAFF TO SOLICIT REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING
ANALYSIS FOR PARKS DISTRICT
ASSESSMENTS.
BY A. Hurtado.
B. Consider Options to Increase the Parks and Recreation Maintenance and
Improvement District Assessment Revenue. Staff Recommendation: Provide
direction to staff. (Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Recreation Director)
Item: 9.B.
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jeremy Laurentowski, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: 01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Options to Increase the Parks and Recreation Maintenance
and Improvement District Assessment Revenue
SUMMARY
On June 5, 2024, the City Council requested a future agenda item to consider options to
increase the assessment revenue associated with the current Parks and Recreation
Maintenance and Improvement District (Parks Maintenance District), including the
process to initiate a Proposition 218 Assessment Mail Ballot Proceeding.
The Parks Maintenance District Engineer’s Report (Engineer’s Report) for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2024/25 established an assessment rate of $72.88 per Single Family Equivalent
(SFE) and estimates that the assessment will generate approximately $1,007,619 in
revenue allocated to the Parks Maintenance District. At the approved rate, assessment
revenue will cover approximately 39% of the operating budget related to park
maintenance operations, or 15% of the total budget for the District, which includes
Operating costs and Capital Improvement costs. As set forth in the Engineer’s Report,
the Assessment Engineer has determined that the level of “general” benefit to the
properties within the boundary of the Parks Maintenance District is 25% of the total
associated costs (which must be paid for with non-assessment revenues), with the
remaining 75% of the costs providing “special” benefit to the properties in the Parks
Maintenance District. However, the assessment revenue will only provide 20% of the
75% cap for the “special” benefit the City is eligible to assess. This results in a General
Fund subsidy of approximately $1,537,514 for FY 2024/25 to fully fund park maintenance
operations.
Staff has evaluated the City’s parks maintenance budget and actual expenditures over
the last several years, as well as the City’s Asset Inventory of park-related amenities and
equipment and has determined that in order to fully fund the 75% ‘special’ benefit portion
of the Parks Maintenance District’s budget, a minimum assessment rate of approximately
Item: 9.B.
278
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 2
$133 per SFE would be needed for FY 2024/25, significantly higher than the $72.88
assessment which was adopted in June 2024.
This report summarizes the two most common options the City can consider to increase
revenue for park maintenance operations: a Proposition 218 Assessment Mail Ballot
Proceeding to increase the existing assessments in the Parks Maintenance District or a
Citywide Special Parcel Tax election to levy a new special tax to replace the assessments.
Both options require a vote (of the property owners for an assessment increase and the
registered voters for a Special Tax), and if passed, both are collected by the County with
property taxes.
Should the City Council determine to move forward with one of the options, staff
recommends issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to engage a consultant to conduct a
survey to determine to what degree there is community support for an assessment
increase, or a new Special Tax to fund park maintenance operations. The total costs to
the City to hire a consultant and cover all related project expenditures is approximately
$140,000 to $175,000.
BACKGROUND
At the November 6, 1984, Statewide General Election, the City of Moorpark consolidated
a Special Municipal Election with the County of Ventura for the purposes of placing an
advisory ballot measure before the voters. The measure allowed the City Council the
opportunity to consider the formation of an Assessment District (District or AD) pursuant
to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the purposes of maintaining public parks
and other landscape areas.
At that time, the City had already established an existing City-wide Lighting District, and
several existing Districts for both parks and other landscape areas, such as parkways,
median islands and slope landscaping (Landscape Maintenance District): AD-83-1
included Glenwood Park; AD-84-1 included portions of Tract No. 2851, such as the
streetscapes on Collins Drive, Pecan Avenue, and Campus Park Drive; and the Tierra
Rejada Road Landscape Maintenance District included the streetscape landscaping
along the Tierra Rejada Road corridor. Additionally, the City had three additional parks
that were acquired when the City incorporated in 1983 but were not associated with an
Assessment District: Campus Park, Griffin Park (now College View Park), and Monte
Vista Park. The City Council ultimately determined that a separate Assessment District
should be formed for parks and a separate Landscape Maintenance District for
streetscapes, and that the Park District should be considered on a City-wide basis, and
that residential, commercial and industrial properties should also be included. Ultimately,
on May 18, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1985-194 establishing Parks
Maintenance District AD-85-1 (AD-85-1) resulting in an annual cost of $15.31 per single-
family residence. The advisory measure passed with 61.5% of voters approving the
measure.
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, also known as the
‘Right to Vote on Taxes Act.’ Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution, by
279
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 3
adding Articles XIII C and XIII D. Pursuant to Article XIII D, a local agency cannot impose
a new, or increase an existing assessment against properties, without conducting a
Proposition 218 Assessment Mail Ballot Proceeding and complying with other procedural
and substantive requirements of Article XIII D. In addition, certain existing assessments,
including park assessments, needed to comply with Article XIII D even if the assessments
were not increased. Because of this, the City’s standard practice of levying an annual
assessment to cover the costs associated with park maintenance operations had to be
reconsidered and AD-85-1 was disbanded. Prior to disbanding AD-85-1, property owners
were paying an annual assessment rate of $41.16 per SFE.
Because AD-85-1 was disbanded, on July 2, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 1997-1342 for the calling of a Special Municipal Election to authorize imposing a Park
Maintenance Special Tax (Special Tax), later known as Measure P. If passed, Measure
P would have established a Special Tax with a 10-year limit to be used exclusively for
parks maintenance purposes to replace the revenue lost due to the passage of
Proposition 218 and disbanding of AD-85-1. The maximum rate proposed for the Special
Tax was $68.50 per single-family residence. On November 4, 1997, an election was held,
and although Measure P received 55% of the votes in support of the measure, it failed to
achieve the required 2/3 majority vote and therefore was not passed by the voters.
Fiscal Year (FY) 1997/98 was financially challenging for the City due to the passage of
Proposition 218 and the revenue lost for park maintenance operations. After considering
many options, the City Council approved several cost saving measures to offset General
Fund contributions. These cost saving measures included in part, closing Monte Vista
Park, eliminating the quarterly recreation brochure, and the cancelling of several
recreation programs and events, including the Easter Egg Hunt, the Teen Music Festival,
and Breakfast with Santa to name a few. Subsequently, funding for the July 3rd Fireworks
event was also removed from the City’s Operating Budget. Additionally, the City Council
authorized the reduction of park maintenance service levels and approved the City
Manager’s recommendation to not fill several vacant positions, as well as the
redistribution of salary costs from the General Fund to other revenue sources.
On February 3, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1999-1566 initiating a
Proposition 218 Mail Ballot Proceeding for the formation of the current Parks Maintenance
District and levy of annual assessments. Adoption of the Resolution was required under
Article XIIID of the California Constitution and the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
(Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section
22500) and established the City Council’s intent to levy and annual assessment under
the provisions of Proposition 218.
On June 16, 1999, the assessment ballot proceeding passed with a final ballot result of
71.5% in support of the assessment, and on July 15, 1999, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 1999-1625 approving the Assessment Engineer’s Report (Engineer’s
Report) and the formation of the Parks Maintenance District, and the levy of an annual
assessment to support park maintenance operations. The boundaries of the Parks
Maintenance District are citywide, and at the time the District was formed, there were 14
existing parks and several more in the planning stages. Additionally, as set forth in the
280
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 4
Engineer’s Report, the City Council made a determination regarding the percentage of
benefit deemed “special” and the percentage deemed “general” conferred by the
maintenance and improvement of City parks and recreation facilities. The percentage
identified by the Assessment Engineer was 25% “general” benefit and 75% “special”
benefit. This percentage was then applied to the total Parks Maintenance District budget.
Under Proposition 218, the City can only assess properties for the portion of the budget
related to “special” benefits, and “general” benefits must be funded with non-assessment
revenues. Although 75% percent was identified as providing “special” benefit, it was
proposed that properties would be assessed approximately 52% of the total park
maintenance budget to maintain a Single-Family Equivalent (SFE) rate that was close to
the rate of the former Park Assessment District (AD-85-1). This amount was well below
the “special” assessment cap of 75%. The initial assessment was established at $39.00
per SFE and included an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, not to exceed 3%
in any year. In instances when CPI exceeds 3%, the remaining difference can be carried
over to a subsequent year. The remaining 48% of the total budget would be funded by
the City’s General Fund, or other revenue sources as they become available.
DISCUSSION
Moorpark now has 19 improved parks and since the formation of the Park Maintenance
District in 1999, the cost to maintain the City’s parks has significantly outpaced the annual
CPI increases in assessment revenue. Accordingly, the percentage of total costs funded
by non-assessment revenue, primarily General Fund and Park Improvement Funds, has
compounded. On June 5, 2024, an agenda report was presented to the City Council to
consider the FY 2024/25 Engineer’s Report for the Parks Maintenance District and to
consider a resolution confirming the assessment amount and ordering the continuation of
assessments. During the meeting, the City Council requested a future agenda item to
consider options to increase the assessment revenue associated with the Park
Maintenance District, including the process to initiate a Proposition 218 Assessment Mail
Ballot Proceeding.
The FY 2024/25 Operating Budget for park maintenance and operating costs is
$2,545,133. The Engineer’s Report estimates that the proposed assessment will generate
approximately $1,007,619 in revenue. The SFE assessment rate for FY 2024/25 is
$72.88. At the approved rate, assessment revenue will cover approximately 39% of the
Operating Budget for park maintenance operations. As mentioned previously, the
Assessment Engineer has determined that the level of “general” benefit is 25% of the total
activities and associated costs, with the remaining 75% providing “special” benefit.
However, the assessment revenue will only provide 52% of the 75% cap for the “special”
benefit the City is eligible to assess and will result in a General Fund subsidy of
approximately $1,537,514 for FY 2024/25 to fully fund park maintenance operations.
Over the last several years, the City has made a concerted effort to not only stabilize park
maintenance costs, but has also invested funding and significant staff time to complete a
variety of projects to help lower maintenance costs. For instance, aeration, portions of
turf fertilization, and overseeding were removed from the contract for landscape
maintenance operations and are now completed by in-house staff, resulting in an annual
281
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 5
cost saving of approximately $50,000. Additionally, the installation of bark mulch was
removed from the contract and for several years was procured by the City and installed
by the Ventura County Probation Agency, saving the City approximately $58,000
annually. Recently, the procurement of mulch was included in the City’s Amended and
Restated Solid Waste Franchise Agreement and will be provided by the City’s waste
hauler and installed by the City’s landscape maintenance contractor at comparable cost
savings.
In addition to these operational changes, the City has also invested time and funding in
an effort to reduce overall water consumption. In 2011, the City entered into an
agreement with HydroPoint Data Systems, Inc. for the installation of WeatherTRAK
irrigation controllers in the City’s parks and Landscape Maintenance Districts.
WeatherTRAK controllers receive real time weather and evapotranspiration (ETo) data
via proprietary software and adjust irrigation schedules on a daily basis to reduce overall
irrigation water use. The project was phased over several years resulting in an average
water reduction of 14.5% over a three-year reporting period. The first phase included the
installation of irrigation controllers at Mammoth Park and Peach Hill Park at a total cost
of approximately $25,000. The remaining parks were completed in subsequent years at
no cost to the City through the Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management
Grant and associated VC RULE Program administered by the County of Ventura.
Additionally, in response to the record drought of 2015, the City Council adopted a
Drought Action Plan (Plan) outlining the various actions the City should take to meet the
State Water Resources Control Board mandated water conservation reduction target of
32%. The Plan not only outlined how the City should conserve water within City operations
but also identified action items necessary to promote water conservation citywide. The
most impactful component of the Plan was the removal of approximately 19.4 acres of
turf in the City’s parks, resulting in a 37% reduction of turf overall. The turf areas were
converted to drip irrigation and included the installation of native and drought tolerant
landscaping at a total cost of approximately $516,000, most of which was offset by
rebates received from Metropolitan Water District through the Be Water Wise rebate
program. Together with the other action items outlined in the Plan, the City achieved a
52% reduction in water use in 2015 and it was estimated that additional maintenance
savings of approximately $28,000 annually would be realized in future years due to the
reduction of turf maintenance operations.
Since approximately 2018, the City has not only made progress to lower maintenance
costs, but has also made an effort to stabilize expenditures through a variety of cost
saving opportunities and operational changes previously discussed. The following is a
comparison of the adopted Parks Division operating budget, actual costs, assessment
revenue, and the General Fund (GF) transfer (subsidy) over the last 10 years.
282
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 6
Budget * Actual Costs Assessment Revenue GF Transfer (Subsidy)
FY 14/15 $ 2,562,820 $ 2,246,141 $ 788,459 $ 1,449,468
FY 15/16 $ 2,727,354 $ 2,270,055 $ 779,960 $ 1,481,129
FY 16/17 $ 2,616,545 $ 2,126,845 $ 782,342 $ 1,335,666
FY 17/18 $ 3,189,367 $ 2,525,989 $ 818,161 $ 1,699,479
FY 18/19 $ 2,783,549 $ 2,347,122 $ 820,207 $ 1,499,030
FY 19/20 $ 2,773,321 $ 2,228,866 $ 861,477 $ 1,346,464
FY 20/21 $ 2,409,446 $ 2,039,608 $ 873,677 $ 1,160,731
FY 21/22 $ 2,468,210 $ 2,163,002 $ 945,486 $ 1,211,497
FY 22/23 $ 2,562,742 $ 2,078,694 $ 955,993 $ 1,090,789
FY 23/24 $ 2,544,220 $ 2,096,437 $ 993,069 $ 1,097,272
*The calculation includes the revenue received from the coin operated light timers, and the
revenue received from MUSD for 50% of the tennis court maintenance at AVCP. On average,
this generates approximately $12,200/year in revenue ($5,400/year from the coin operated
timers and $6,800/year from MUSD). The coin timers were removed in 2024 and will not provide
a revenue source in future years.
As shown in the below chart, as assessment revenue has increased over the last
10 years, the GF Transfer has significantly been reduced. Also of note, since
approximately 2020, the budget and actual costs for park maintenance operations have
generally stabilized. This is partly due to the cost reduction strategies and investments
made by the City discussed previously, as well as the fact that the City has made it a
priority to continue to find ways to reduce costs related to park maintenance operations.
However, the City has reached the point where expenditures have normalized and will
most likely increase in future years as labor costs and utility costs continue to rise. Staff
is doubtful that any significant reductions in expenditures in future years will be achieved
without significant reductions to maintenance operations.
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24
10-year Budget Comparison
Budget Actual Costs GF Transfer (Subsidy) Assessment Revenue
283
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 7
As shown in the previous charts, FY 2023/24 was the last year the City was able to
determine the actual costs for park maintenance operations. The GF transfer was
$1,096,357, assessment revenue was $993,069, and the total actual costs was
$2,096,437 (not shown in the calculation is an additional $7,011 in revenue received from
the coin-operated light timers, as well as reimbursement from Moorpark Unified School
District (MUSD) for 50% of the maintenance cost for the tennis courts at Arroyo Vista
Community Park). The FY 2023/24 assessment revenue contributed 53% of the actual
costs for park maintenance operations. However, according to the Assessment
Engineer’s analysis, 75% of the cost of the improvements provide a special benefit, which
would increase the total assessment revenue from $993,069 to approximately
$1,572,327. This increase in assessment revenue would ultimately lower the GF transfer
from approximately $1,097,272 to $524,110, resulting in substantial savings to the City.
The corresponding assessment rate would need to be increased from $70.76 to
approximately $112 per SFE, with annual CPI adjustments thereafter. It should be noted
that this assessment rate is estimated for discussion purposes and based on an SFE
factor of 1 (single-family residential). As discussed further in the report, to increase the
assessment rate will require approval of the property owners pursuant to a
Proposition 218 Assessment Mail Ballot Proceeding and a detailed analysis would need
to be completed to determine the assessment increase.
Additionally, it is generally recognized that the construction of new parks or major Capital
Projects are completed with non-assessment revenue. The City generally relies on
Development Impact Fees to fund these types of projects, such as the City’s Park
Improvement Funds or Special Project Funds. Further, the City typically explores a
variety of grant opportunities to help cover costs of new capital improvement projects.
The Skate Park at Poindexter Park and the Recreation Trail at Arroyo Vista Community
Park were completed with a combination of grant funding and Park Improvement Funds.
However, the replacement of Capital Assets (assets) are typically considered in the Park
Maintenance Assessment budget. The City’s Asset Inventory (inventory) includes all park
assets, from picnic tables, benches, and drinking fountains, to gazebos, shade structures,
and playground equipment. The inventory considers the deprecation of all assets and
typically funds the replacement of these assets through the City’s Equipment
Replacement Fund (ERF). However, at this time, the ERF is funded directly by the
General Fund because there is no other funding source available to the City. An analysis
of the inventory related to park assets confirms that the City should fund the ERF
approximately $396,000 per year to provide funding for the replacement of assets in
future years. Considering a similar analysis where 75% of park improvement costs
provide a special benefit, 75% of the annual funding needed to fund the ERF would
increase the estimated annual assessment rate from approximately $112 per SFE to
approximately $133 per SFE.
Attached to this staff report is a City Council Box Item (Box Item) that was issued to the
City Council on September 13, 2021 (Attachment 1). The Box Item compares Moorpark
to other cities in Ventura County when it comes to funding park operations. Generally,
Moorpark’s GF transfer is higher than the majority of the cities that manage park
operations independently, and when comparing Moorpark to cities that manage park
operations under a Special District, Moorpark residents are assessed significantly less.
284
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 8
The following is a summary of the two most common options the City can consider to
increase revenue specifically for park maintenance operations. Both options, an
assessment increase or Special Tax, require a vote, and if passed, revenue is collected
with property taxes.
Proposition 218 Assessment Mail Ballot Proceeding (Mail Ballot Proceeding):
To increase the existing Park Maintenance District assessments beyond the authorized
annual adjustment, the City must comply with certain procedural and substantive
requirements in accordance with the 1972 Act, Article XIII D of the California Constitution
(Proposition 218), and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government
Code Sections 53750 through 53756). The required proceedings are similar to the annual
assessment proceedings the City undertakes each year for the Park Maintenance District
pursuant to the 1972 Act with certain additional steps required by Proposition 218 and the
Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. These additional steps are similar to the
proceedings that were undertaken in 1999 when the Park Maintenance District was first
established.
As in prior years, the City Council must adopt a resolution initiating the proceedings and
ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Report to evaluate how the City’s funding goals
will impact the amount of the proposed increase to the assessments and the amount of
the City’s required General Fund contribution for general benefits pursuant to
Proposition 218 (as mentioned currently 25% of the cost of the maintenance and
improvements). Also, as in prior years, following approval of the Engineer’s Report, the
City Council must adopt a resolution of intention setting a public hearing, and following
the public hearing, the City Council must adopt a resolution levying the assessments.
Unlike the regular annual assessment proceedings, however, the City must provide
mailed notice of the public hearing and conduct an Assessment Mail Ballot proceeding.
The City must mail notice of the hearing to the record owner of each parcel at least
45 days prior to the hearing and among a list of other procedural steps, each notice must
state the reason for the proposed increase, the amount of the proposed increase, the total
amount of the increase chargeable to the entire Park Maintenance District, and the basis
upon which the amount of the increase was calculated (being the assessment
methodology used in the Engineer’s Report).
An increase in the assessment must be approved by a majority vote of the
weighted/qualified ballots received. The City Council must abandon the proposed
increase if there is a majority protest. A majority protest will exist if, upon the conclusion
of the public hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots
submitted in favor of the assessment. In determining whether a majority protest exists,
each ballot is weighted according to the proposed increase to be levied against the parcel.
Under the current assessment methodology, the Engineer’s Report measures the special
benefit conferred by the maintenance and improvements with reference to the population
density of the parcels in the Park Maintenance District and determines the relative special
benefit to each parcel based on single family equivalents (SFE), with single family homes
assigned 1 SFE and all other parcels, including vacant, multi-family, commercial,
285
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 9
industrial, and institutional parcels, assigned an SFE value based on the average number
of people who could potentially live on, work at, or otherwise use a property. For example,
under the current methodology, the ballot for a condominium unit will have 80% of the
weight of a ballot for a single-family home and the ballot for a mobile home will have 65%
of the weight of a ballot for a single-family home. It is generally recommended that the
assessment methodology be reviewed before undertaking proceedings, particularly since
the current methodology determines the SFE for each type of property by a population
density that was based on the 1999 census.
Citywide Special Parcel Tax (Special Tax):
An alternative to increasing the existing Park Maintenance District assessments is to levy
an annual Special Tax dedicated to funding the park maintenance and improvements. If
the Special Tax is approved, the City Council would then undertake proceedings to
dissolve the current Park Maintenance District.
The process is similar to the 1997 Special Municipal Election that was held for a Special
Tax measure for park maintenance operations, i.e. Measure P. The City Council must
propose the adoption of a Special Tax by resolution or ordinance, adopted after notice
and a public hearing. The resolution or ordinance must include the type of tax, its rate,
the method of collection (typically by inclusion on the County property tax roll), the
purpose of the Special Tax, the date on which the election on the tax will be held, and the
purpose for which the Special Tax will be used.
Unlike assessments, a Special Tax does not need to be based upon the special benefits
the taxpayers receive from the improvements. A Special Tax may be based on a flat rate
per parcel or a rate that varies based on factors such as parcel size, use, or other physical
attributes. A parcel tax could use the single-family equivalent (SFE) formula that was
used to determine the assessments within the current Park Maintenance District. Unlike
assessments, for a parcel tax there is no requirement to separate general benefit from
special benefit, meaning that the entire cost of the maintenance and improvements could
be funded by the Special Tax without a contribution from the City.
Additionally, the resolution or ordinance may state a range of rates. If the range is
approved by the voters, the City Council may impose the tax at any rate that is less than
or equal to the maximum amount approved without additional voter approval. The
resolution or ordinance may also provide that the tax may be adjusted for inflation
pursuant to a clearly defined formula. If the formula is approved by the voters, the Council
may thereafter impose the tax at any rate or amount that is less than or equal to the
inflation-adjusted maximum amount.
A Special Tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of the City
who vote in the election (being the registered voters) and unlike assessments, the votes
are not weighted and each registered voter who votes in the election has one vote.
Additionally, because the tax is a Special Tax, as distinguished from a general tax, the
City has more latitude when setting the date for an election and may choose from a variety
of established election dates.
286
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 10
Next Steps:
Should the City Council decide to consider one or both options for increasing the annual
revenues for park maintenance and improvement operations, staff recommends issuing
an RFP to engage a consultant that will assist the City with this effort. The first phase
includes a comprehensive planning strategy, preliminary assessment engineering, and/or
preliminary special tax analysis, and a feasibility analysis. These steps are designed to
evaluate the financial, legal, and operational viability of the proposed Special Tax
measure or Mail Ballot Proceeding and will establish the foundation for subsequent
actions. This phase will, in part, identify the annual revenue required from the assessment
increase or special tax and the corresponding rates.
Next, the City and consultant will design and conduct a mailed public opinion survey. This
survey will evaluate property owners’ support for an assessment increase and voters’
support for a special tax at the identified proposed rates, test preferences for specific
measurable elements, and evaluate support for each option. A mailed survey is
particularly effective for a Mail Ballot Proceeding, as it closely mirrors the mailed balloting
process, minimizes response bias, and ensures input from all property owners, including
non-residential stakeholders. For Special Tax measures, the survey also effectively
captures voter preferences. This approach will provide critical insights into which a
funding mechanism is more likely to succeed and will help shape the measure to align
with community priorities.
Based on the survey results, the City Council may decide to proceed with a Mail Ballot
Proceeding or Special Tax measure and, if so, at what rate and with which specific
elements. If the City Council determines to move forward with an assessment balloting
procedure, the next step will involve preparing the Engineer’s Report. This document will
detail the assessment methodology, define and quantify special and general benefits,
establish the proposed assessment rates and zones of benefit (if any), and outline the
rationale for cost apportionment among properties. Prepared in full compliance with
Proposition 218 requirements, the Engineer’s Report will support the legal basis for the
proposed assessment increase.
Upon preliminary approval of the Engineer’s Report for a proposed assessment increase,
the City Council can initiate the 45-day Mail Ballot Proceeding. During this period,
property owners will receive an official notice outlining the proposed assessment increase
and an official assessment ballot to cast their vote in support or opposition to the proposed
assessment increase.
If the Council chooses to pursue a Special Tax measure, the next step would involve
drafting a Resolution calling for the election and coordinating with the County Registrar
of Voters to include the measure on either a County established election date or a special
election held specifically for the Special Tax measure. There are some cost savings
associated with holding the election on an established election date, but there may be
some disadvantages depending on what other measures are being considered at that
time. The feasibility study would include an evaluation of all election dates and County
measures being considered before a determination is made when to hold an election.
287
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 11
Concurrently, the City and consultant will need to conduct a robust, non-advocacy
informational outreach campaign to educate voters about the measures. These efforts
aim to promote transparency and frame the issue for voters.
Timeline Considerations:
The timeline to implement a funding measure that generates revenue for FY 2026/27 is
not optimal but manageable. The feasibility analysis, preliminary assessment
engineering, and initial planning would occur in late Winter 2025, followed by the mailed
public opinion survey in Spring 2025. For a Mail Ballot Proceeding, the timeline is flexible
but would likely need to conclude by November 2025. For a Special Tax measure, the
process would align with the established November 2025 election schedule, allowing
consolidation with the General County Ballot. However, the City may consider a special
election in order to meet a FY 2026/27 timeline if the County does not hold an election in
2025.
The time of year will also need to be considered, as a spring election schedule is typically
preferred for park related assessments or special taxes. However, this would move the
timeline out approximately one year and the City would not be able to realize any new
revenue until FY 2027/28.
Another significant timing challenge is the County Tax Collector’s requirement that all new
direct charges be approved by December 1 of the preceding fiscal year to be included on
the County tax roll for the next fiscal year. As direct charges must be added to the tax
roll by August 10, this requirement could compress the timeline, reducing the preparation
and outreach period by several months. However, it is possible that the City could request
a waiver of this requirement to allow flexibility, potentially targeting a Spring 2026 ballot
for inclusion on the FY 2026/27 tax roll. Alternatively, the City could aim for inclusion on
the FY 2027/28 tax roll, providing additional time for preparation and community
engagement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does
not constitute a project, as defined by Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for this effort will depend on whether the City pursues an assessment Mail
Ballot Proceeding or a Special Tax measure, as each option carries distinct requirements
and associated costs. For an assessment Mail Ballot Proceeding, costs will include
preparation of the Engineer’s Report, and preparing and conducting the mailed ballot
process in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements. For a Special Tax measure,
costs will include County election expenses, coordination with the Ventura County
Elections Division, and associated legal and administrative requirements.
288
Honorable City Council
01/15/2025 Regular Meeting
Page 12
Given these variables, the City should anticipate project costs in the range of $140,000
to $175,000. This estimate reflects typical expenses for feasibility analysis, public opinion
surveys, Engineer’s Report preparation, assessment ballot/election proceedings, and
non-advocacy informational outreach. While these costs represent a significant
investment, they are essential for ensuring the proposed Mail Ballot Proceeding or
Special Tax measure is legally sound, community-aligned, and positioned for success.
Funding has not been included in the FY 2024/25 Operating Budget for this work. Should
the City Council direct staff to pursue an option to increase revenues for park maintenance
and operations, staff will issue an RFP to engage a consultant to start this process and
will request a Budget Amendment upon City Council award of the Agreement.
COUNCIL GOAL COMPLIANCE
This action is consistent with City Council Strategic Priority: Governance, Goal 3:
“Excellent City Governance”, Objective 3.5: “Financial Sustainability.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff.
Attachment: September 27, 2021, City Council Box Item: Park Assessment Comparison
289
CITY OF MOORPARK
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Jeremy Laurentowski
DATE: September 27, 2021
SUBJECT: Park Assessment Comparison
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with information
regarding the Single-Family Equivalent (SFE) assessment rate (park assessment)
currently levied to Moorpark homeowners and a comparison to neighboring cities.
This information was requested by the City Council during the Budget Workshop
on May 26, 2021.
Background
In 1999 the City established the Parks and Recreation Maintenance and
Improvement District (Park Maintenance District) for the maintenance and
improvement of City parks. It was initiated by the City Council to provide funding
in place of Parks Maintenance Assessment District No. AD 85-1, which was
disbanded in 1998 as a result of Proposition 218. The Park Maintenance District
is based on a “special” assessment by which the City assesses property owners
for that portion of park maintenance and improvement activities that generate a
“special” benefit. Activities that generate a “general” benefit must be funded from
non-assessment revenue, typically the General Fund and Park Improvement
Funds. The amount of the park assessment levied to property owners may only
increase annually by the amount of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los
Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim area, and not more than 3% in any year. In
situations where the CPI exceeds 3%, the remaining difference can be carried over
to a subsequent year.
As detailed in the Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Improvement District
Engineer’s Report for FY 2021/22, the level of “general” benefit to properties within
the district is 25%, with the remaining 75% providing “special” benefit. This means
that the City can assess property owners within the district up to 75% of the costs
of maintaining, operating and improving the parks and recreation facilities. When
initially established, the park assessment was set at $39.00, generating
approximately 52% of the revenue required to support the park maintenance
operations at that time. This percentage was well below the “special” assessment
cap of 75%. Over the years, as park acreage and amenities expanded and rising
maintenance and utility costs outpaced increases in park assessment revenues,
City Council Box Item
ATTACHMENT
290
Page 2 of 4
Park Assessment – September 13, 2021
the percentage of the total activities funded by non-assessment revenues
(primarily General Fund and Park Improvement Funds) have compounded.
Current Park Assessment and Budget Summary
The FY 2021/22 Operating Budget for Park maintenance operations is
approximately $2,400,000. The park assessment that has been established for
FY 2021/22 is set at $66.69/household and will generate approximately $934,500
in revenue. This is expected to cover approximately 39% of the total costs to
operate the City parks, well below the 75% cap for the “special” benefit the City is
eligible to assess. In FY 2021/22, the General Fund (GF) will subsidize about
$1,465,500 to fund park operations. However, the 25% ‘general’ benefit cap
subsidized by the GF should only be equivalent to approximately $600,000. The
75% ‘special’ benefit cap funded by the park assessment should include an
additional $895,500. This would require an increase to the park assessment rate
by $63.90/household, which would require a total annual park assessment of
$130.59/household to normalize maintenance costs. This is approximately double
the current assessment.
Additionally, approximately $3,900,000 has been included in FY 2021/22 budget
for major park related improvement projects ($1,257,000 carryover + $2,644,000
new appropriation). These projects are included in the FY 2021/22 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and include the replacement of various playground
structures, the project to build an inclusive playground at Tierra Rejada Park and
a project to install a storage facility at AVCP, to name a few. It should be noted
that although many major improvement projects directly related to the parks are
funded by the Community Wide Park Improvement Fund, this fund is one time
money that was obtained through development projects and will only be
replenished as new development projects come online. Additionally, there is some
uncertainty regarding the viability of this fund as the City nears buildout and
transitions to more affordable housing projects and/or higher density and mixed-
use developments. The total current fund balance in the Community Wide Park
Development Fund, as well as Park Improvement Funds for Zones 1 and 2 (Funds
2010, 2011 and 2012) is approximately $1,446,000. Included in this balance is
$1,614,000 that has been allocated for the project to install the inclusive
playground at Tierra Rejada Park, of which approximately $1,000,000 will be
reimbursed through grant funding. This brings the estimated balance of the Funds
to approximately $2,446,000. The total funding required to complete all the park
improvement projects identified in the CIP is approximately $15,235,000. Clearly
the City will need to determine alternative revenue sources in the future to fund the
replacement of aging infrastructure and to keep up with future trends in recreation.
Park Assessment Comparison
Many local cities that manage Park and Recreation Departments inhouse generally
do not receive special revenue funds to subsidize their operations. For instance,
291
Page 3 of 4
Park Assessment – September 13, 2021
Ojai, Fillmore, and Port Hueneme do not have any park-related revenue sources
that directly offset park maintenance costs. The bulk of the funding for park
maintenance operations comes directly from the General Fund. However, with the
exception of Ojai, these cities generally have a low subsidy per housing unit when
comparing park maintenance costs. The low subsidy is generally due to the fact
that these cities have a low park to population ratio, and/or have low maintenance
standards. Ojai’s GF subsidy to park maintenance operations is higher than
Moorpark’s when comparing costs per housing units.
Agency GF Subsidy # Housing Units Subsidy/Housing Unit
*Moorpark $1,465,500 13,637 $107.46
Ojai $468,080 3,443 $135.95
Fillmore $382,608 4,664 $82.03
Pt. Hueneme $518,050 8,276 $62.59
Several cities have gone to the voters to pass various Measures to enhance
revenues of which a specified portion is allocated towards park maintenance
operations. For instance, Ventura and Santa Paula have passed Measure O and
Measure T, which increased the local sales tax by ½ cent and 1 cent, respectively,
a portion of which has been allocated to help offset the GF subsidy for parks
maintenance. Measure O and T bring in approximately $400,000 and $82,000
respectively to offset maintenance costs.
Agency GF Subsidy # Housing Units Subsidy/Housing Unit
*Moorpark $1,465,500 13,637 $107.46
Ventura $6,307,185 44,031 $143.24
Santa Paula $340,340 9,004 $37.80
*Park maintenance budget ($2,400,000) - Park Assessment ($934,500) = GF
Subsidy ($1,465,500)
It should be noted that Oxnard has not been included in this summary due to the
fact that many parks within the City are funded either through Community Facilities
Districts (CFD’s) or Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD’s). Because of this,
the costs to residents vary and are dependent on the parks and/or amenities that
were constructed when a particular development project was completed. Oxnard
also utilizes a variety of funding sources to subsidize park maintenance and it is
not clear what the actual costs are to the City through GF transfers.
The cities of Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks have all voted to establish
Recreation and Park Districts (Districts). These Districts are separate
governmental entities that receive their own allocation of property tax revenue to
fund park and recreation operations within a defined area. In addition, the Districts
can pass additional tax measures with a vote of the population served by the
District to increase revenue and help offset costs. For instance, Pleasant Valley
Recreation and Park District (PVRPD) and Rancho Simi Recreation and Park
292
Page 4 of 4
Park Assessment – September 13, 2021
District (RSRPD) have both passed additional property tax Measures to increase
maintenance revenue.
Agency Park
Assessment
Additional
Assessment
Revenue
# Housing
Units
Cost/Housing
Unit
Moorpark $934,500 13,637 $66.69
RSRPD $13,843,045 $2,256,695 42,731 $376.77
CRPD $16,315,000 44,000 $371.00
PVRPD $6,481,869 $1,192,237 28,013 $273.95
Of the six cities that manage Park and Recreation Departments inhouse, only
Ventura and Ojai rely on a larger GF transfer than Moorpark to subsidize park
maintenance operations.
When comparing Moorpark to the three Districts in Ventura County, Moorpark
residents are assessed significantly less than RSRPD, Conejo Recreation and
Park District (CRPD), and PVRPD to fund park maintenance operations.
293