Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1997 0618 CC REG ITEM 09GCITY OF MOORPARK AGENDA REPORT ITEM 7• Crnr of MOORPAIM CALIPOPM City Councn ating ofd�-- _ 199 �A�rnN �2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COt)NCI[., BY: � v FROM: RICHARD HARE, DEPUTY CITY MANAGE SUBJECT: CONSIDER CALLING AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 1997 TO REPLACE REVENUES WHICH MAY BE LOST WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 218 DATE: JUNE 12, 1997 (6/18/97 City Council Meeting) The implementing legislation for Proposition 218 should take effect during fiscal year 1997/1998 and will govern the Lighting & Landscaping Assessment District 84 -1 and Parks Maintenance Assessment District 85 -1 process for fiscal year 1998/1999. Communities across California are scrambling, some prematurely, to pass funding authority for their current assessment districts or to pass replacement tax authority Moorpark relies on two assessment districts for maintenance purposes. Assessment District 84 -2 provides funding for the operation and maintenance of street lights and the landscaping for streets and street rights -of -way Approximately $209,000 is for lighting, $144,000 for citywide parkway landscaping and $366,000 for specific zones of benefit. This is a total of $719,000. The Parks Maintenance Assessment District 85 -1 is approximately $607,000. Both assessment districts amount to over $1,300,000 It is possible that the enacting legislation will recognize that all or part of the assessment district for landscaping and lighting (AD 84 -2) is exempt from the requirements of Proposition 218, however, the Parks Maintenance Assessment District (85 -1) clearly falls under Proposition 218 requirements for fiscal year 1997/1998 The options available to continue the funding levels for these services are very limited: Maintain the current assessment without changes in rates or methodology. This would mean that all new or increased costs would be passed to the general fund. In this city's case, the assessment district operational costs are already understated because we do not charge indirect costs (management, office space, etc.) To the assessment districts. Also, there is a question which will be answered hopefully by the enacting legislation of how do you keep a current assessment the same and still comply with the other requirements of Proposition 218 such as charging public property an assessment and only charging for direct benefit as opposed to general benefit. 2 Follow the ballot procedure of Proposition 218 to gain approval of the assessment. It is realized that many of Moorpark's residents and businesses appreciate the beauty of the community's landscaping and parks and that they recognize the need for lighting for personal and traffic safety. The balloting procedure adopted by Proposition 218 is heavily biased and would ultimately result in the elimination of effected assessment districts. Eliminate the assessment districts and replace them with another revenue source. The City has been very conservative with regard to the implementation of new assessments and new taxes. We are the only City in the county without a business license tax or a Clean Water Act (NPDES) assessment. We do not have a utility users tax, entertainment tax, parcel tax or special tax of any kind. New Revenue Sources It is staff s opinion that the assessment districts will not be a viable alternative for funding the parks maintenance services currently provided and may even be an issue for lighting and landscaping. It is felt that alternative revenues must be sought for at least parks maintenance. The City Council could have an election to vote on a new general or special tax. A general tax must be for general purposes and requires a majority vote. A special tax would be earmarked for a special purpose and requires a two - thirds vote. It is estimated that $1,300,000 in new revenue would have to be raised to replace both assessment districts Business License Tax: As it sounds, this tax is placed on the gross receipts of businesses. There is an increased administrative cost to implement this program. It would require analysis to determine how much revenue would be needed from this source to offset the loss of the assessment districts and the cost of administration. There are approximately 2,000 businesses in the City. We do not have any information on the total gross receipts of the area businesses to determine an appropriate rate On average a business would have to provide $650 per year ($54 per month) to raise $1,300,000 Parcel Tax: A parcel tax is easily administered through the County Assessor's Office, therefore costs would be minimal. A parcel tax of $150 per parcel per year ($12.50 per month) would generate approximately $1,300,000 In this case the burden would be shifted to small property owners. Utility Users Tax: The City could apply a tax to consumers of telephone, gas, electric and cable services. Staff will be reviewing the franchise information that we have available at this time and will provide the City Council with an estimate at the 6/18/97 meeting. Calling an Election In order to call an election on a general tax or special tax in November, 1997, the Council would have to pass four resolutions no later than July 2, 1997 so that the can be forwarded to the 970612.057 county. Alternative election dates are June, 1998 primary and November, 1998 general election or special election dates, per the election code. if an election is consolidated with other elections the cost would be $5,000 and on a special basis $25,000 Drafts of the required resolutions are attached for your information This information is provided now to facilitate Council discussion. The staff requests that the Council direct staff to bring back any additional information required and to defer any action to June 18 or July 2 Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 97 -_ calling and giving notice of a special election, and Resolutions 97- 97- _, and 97- _ approving associated actions necessary to hold an election. 970612057