CALL TO ORDER
CITY OF FAIRFIELD FAIRFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR CONCURRENT MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022; 6:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 1000 WEBSTER STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA
94533
MINUTES
Mayor Harry T. Price called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Pam Bertani, Cat Moy, Doriss Panduro, Chuck Timm, Scott Tonnesen, and Mayor Price were present. Vice Mayor Rick Vaccaro was absent.
INVOCATION
Worship Pastor Karen Stetins of St. Mark's Lutheran Church gave an invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Bertani led the Pledge of Allegiance.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Bertani remarked that it was nice to see a packed chamber. She thanked Pastor Stetins for her assistance with the Juneteenth event. She reported that there would be a movie night on the county lawn in September and that more details would follow.
Councilmember Moy reported that she visited Park Ranger Teri Luchini in Rockville Hills Regional Park to survey the trees due to drought conditions. She stated that many trees are dying and that they have a disease. She asked that hikers stay on the trails and not wander off due to the dry conditions. Next, she spoke about the grand jury report on homelessness and recommended that a forensic audit is done.
She asked for the matter to be placed on a future agenda, and Councilmember Moy concurred.
Councilmember Timm remarked that the report indicated that Solano County would pay for a forensic audit, not the City of Fairfield. Interim City Manager David Gassaway stated that was correct. He also asked for the air conditioner to be turned up!
Councilmember Tonnesen reported that he and Councilmember Panduro were leaving City Hall at lunchtime and saw smoke. There was a fire on Garfield Street, so they observed the Fire Department extinguishing the fire. He thanked Fire Chief Matt Luckenbach, Deputy Chief Robb Herrick, and staff for their efficient work. Next, he reported that lots of changes are happening downtown and that the City is trying to bring more businesses to the area. One change is that the stoplights have been removed and replaced with stop signs. He also reported that the tennis and pickleball courts resurfacing project is moving along nicely.
Councilmember Panduro reported she attended the summer concert in Dover Park on July 15 and that it was great to see so many families enjoying the park and music. She thanked Jeff Trager for his efforts in recruiting live bands to perform in Fairfield during the Summer Concert Series. Next, she reported that herself and Councilmembers Timm and Tonnesen met with the CEO and CFO of Food 4 Less, who will be moving into the space vacated by FoodMaxx on North Texas Street. She stated that Food 4 Less plans to do $8 million in tenant improvements and will hire many new employees in 2023.
Mayor Price reported that American Legion baseball is back in Fairfield at Laurel Creek Park representing N. California baseball. Lastly, he reported that he and other councilmembers would attend the Change of Command Ceremony at Travis Air Force Base next week. He thanked Colonel Corey Simmons for his past two-year command.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
Interim City Manager David Gassaway reported that the City of Fairfield is updating the Enterprise Resource Program (ERP) for financial systems and backing. Staff has been working on the ERP for two years and it was finally released July 1. He stated that it brings the City into the 21St century by streamlining workflow and processes. He thanked the Finance and IT staff, who have worked tirelessly on this project, especially in the last few months and over July 4 weekend. Next, he introduced new Finance Director John Furtado and welcomed him to the City of Fairfield. He stated there were no changes to the agenda.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Assistant Attorney Lori Liu stated she had nothing to report from closed session.
CITY CLERK REPORT
City Clerk Karen Rees stated the filing process for those running for Mayor or City Council opened July
18. She stated there were three Council seats open (Districts 1, 3 & 5) and the Mayoral seat. The filing period will close on August 12, 2022, (unless an incumbent does not run —then candidates are given five extra days — August 17, 2022).
PRESENTATIONS
1. Director of Parks & Recreation Kristina Chamberlin and Program Coordinator for Special Events Andrea Azurdia presented the 4th of July Parade Awards.
2. Esther Beavers of the City Manager's Office presented the Fairfield 101 Civic Academy Graduation certificates to employee participants.
3. MCE Program Implementation follow-up presented by Community Development Manager Sebastian Conn of MCE. Public Works Management Analyst Corey Beavers also spoke.
Councilmember Bertani had questions regarding billing and opting out of MCE that she said were raised by her constituents. Mr. Conn and Mr. Beavers stated they would investigate the issue and respond as soon as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jeff Trager spoke about upcoming events at the Downtown Theatre and thanked Councilmember Panduro for attending the Zebop concert in Dover Park.
John Eckstrom spoke about Shelter Solano and provided a "Report Card" to Council.
George Kennedy spoke about pickleball courts at Allan Witt Park.
June Johnsen thanked Public Works' staff for providing trash cans in Rolling Hills Park.
Convened meeting of the Paradise Valley Maintenance and Monitoring District at 7:14 p.m.
Reconvened meeting of the City Council at 7:23 p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Minute Action Approving the Response to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled "Solano County is Not Prepared for Future Emergencies"
7. Minute Action Approving Response to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled "An Operational Review of Solano County Library Services (SCLS)"
8. Minute Action Approving Response to the 2021-2022 Grand Jury Report Entitled "Effective Emergency Response Needs City and County Support"
9. Minute Action Approving the Reappointment to the Two -by -Two Homeless Subcommittee and the Formation of a Travis Unified School District Subcommittee
10. Approval of Meeting Minutes from March to June 2022
11. Resolution 2022-174 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Reconsidering and Authorizing Public Meetings to be Held Via Teleconferencing Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and Making Findings and Determinations Regarding the Same
12. Resolution 2022-175 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Communications Facility Ground Lease Agreement Between the City of Fairfield and DISH Wireless LLC for a New Cellular Site Located at 4921 Vanden Road, More Commonly Known as APN 0166-102- 100
13. Resolution 2022-176 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Replacement Purchase of Computer Server Hardware from Dell Marketing LP
14. Resolution 2022-177 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Setting a Hearing for August 16, 2022, Re: Appeal of Revocation of Business License #21001161 for Auto Service and Towing Pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Fairfield Municipal Code
Rick Johnson asked to speak on Item 15. Item 15 was pulled from consent calendar. Councilmembers and City Staff spoke on Item 15.
15. Resolutions 2022-178 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Services Agreement with NBS Government Finance Group for Assessment Engineering Services for Six Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts; and Resolution 2022-179 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with NBS Government Finance Group for Special District Community Engagement Services
Rick Johnson spoke on Item 15.
Councilmember Timm made a motion to approve Resolutions 2022-178 and 2022-179. Councilmember Moy seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Councilmember Bertani voting no.
Resume consideration of consent calendar.
16. Resolution 2022-180 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase Three Replacement Vehicles for Fixed -Route Transit Operations
17. Resolution 2022-181 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Declaring the Implementation of Stage II Drought Measures of the City of Fairfield Water Shortage Contingency Plan as Required by the State Water Resources Control Board
Councilmember Moy made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, excluding Item 15.
Councilmember Bertani seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18. Public Works Management Analyst Chris Lewis recommended to Council that it open the public hearing; and approve Resolutions 2022-182 to 2022-197 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Engineer's Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Improvements for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 — Gateway, No. 3 — Waterman Highlands, No. 5 — Smith Ranch, No. 6 — Peppertree, No. 7 — Rolling Hills, No. 8 — Kolob Estates, No. 10 — Southbrook, No. 11— Paradise Valley North, No. 12 — Downtown Business District, No. 13 — North Cordelia, No. 14 — Woodlake, No. 15 —Gold Ridge, No. 16 — Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 — Chadbourne-Beck-Cordelia, No. 18 — Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 — Corporate Commons.
Mayor Price opened the public hearing.
Barbara Pascone, June Johnsen, Les Johnsen, David Renaud, David Thacker, Roxanne Bradley, Rick Johnson, and Shekhar Misra spoke specifically on Resolution 2022-186 regarding LLMD No. 7, Rolling Hills.
After a lengthy discussion, Mayor Price closed the public hearing.
City Attorney David Lim called into the meeting and advised Council, due to a threat of potential litigation from a speaker, that it would be prudent to meet in closed session with legal advisers before moving forward, and he advised that expert Attorney Robin Harris, who specializes in assessments and special districts, be included in the closed session.
After further discussion, Councilmember Timm made a motion to continue the entire public hearing of Item 18 at a later date. Councilmember Bertani seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNED MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 16,2022,6:00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBER.
Z r� I—e—ov—
City
Clerk
Mayor
References:
Article 4.6, Proposition 218 Omnibus Imp lementation Act, h ttys:lllaw. i ustia. cont
California Legislative Analyst's Office 1996,
www.lao_ca.gov
California Special Districts Association, Proposition 218, 2013, htt s:ilw«•w.\ivaterboards.ca.�zov
City Council Resolution 88-166
City Council Resolution 88-233
City Council Agenda May 16, 1989
City Council Agenda 89-77
City Council Resolution 89-135
City Council Resolution 91-213B
City Council Resolution 93-76
City Council Agenda, April 19, 1994
City Council Resolution 94-59
City Council Agenda August 2, 1994
City Council Agenda May 2, 1995
City Council Resolution 95-70
City Council, Resolution 95-79
City Council Agenda July 16, 1996
City Council Resolution 96-161
City Counci, Resolution 98-95
City Council Resolution No. 2019-68
2 2ksgi 131PP&D I t
c. 88,l��
City Council 2019-107, Agenda Report & Engineer's Report City Council Resolution 2020-111
City Council Resolution 2021-166 & Engineer's Report
City Council Agenda, NBS Contract, August 30, 2021
City Council Agenda Report February 15, 2022
1.7 City Council, Resolution -2 022-218
City Council; the citing's above and Resolutions, Agendas and Documents were researched from 1988 -present, at Laserfiche's search engine lit t os::'iesexvices.fairfield.ca.goy & �1tt s:, : eservices_n�t�blinlc'search
References:
City of Fairfield 2019-2020, Civil GrandJury Report
httDs-// www..solano.cotirts.ca.gov,/divisions,,'gand-iLii3 ., City of Fairfield, Rolling Hills Maintenance Budget 2019, Community Facilities Districts & Parks,
www. fair tie] d. ca_ von
City of Fairfield 2021-2022, Budget summary, page 200, 201, 232, Community facilities Districts & Parks,
www. fa rrfield.ca.gov
City of Fairfield Property Assessment Ballot, 2013, City Clerk Form for #'s APN: 0046-300-180-300.
City of Hayward, Adopting 218 Procedures,
ryww.ha aad-ca.!zov`sites,'defaWtlfilesldocuments,'Resolutioii-AdU titig-Ballot City of Sierra Madre, City Council adopted Resolution & Engineer Report, in comp liance with Proposition 218, November 10, 2020,
www.qityofsierraivad1 e.com
CivicMic online, for RollingHills fiscal year 2021-2022 h t tps:flci v itn ic. comlci ty•-of-fa irfield
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, 1978, Proposition 13, htt s:llhita.or-u/ I'o osition-l3
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, 1996, Proposition 218. htt s_//hjta.or�ro ositial�-218
Lanscapingand LightingAct of 1972,
www.california-taxdata.coM!pdf/1972LLact/pdf
References:
Proposition 218 Implementation Guide 2007, pages 21,22 & 30 https:,'/ www.iawjustia.oi-v,/resoui-ces/codes/califomia Proposition 26 & 218 League of California Cities, 2007
h ttps://cac it i es . ori
Proposition 218 Implementation Guide, League of California Cities, 2007 lett s:1lcacities.or
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v Santa Clara County Open SpaceAuthority, (case #S 136468), decided July 1, 2008.
Solano County Elections Office online,
htt ://ballot cdia.or T solat)o-c ouiity-califomia-ballot-mcasures Streets and Highway Code (22000-22679) 1972,
https://IegaUnfo.legislature.ca.gov
The Daily Republic, Me asw•e P, ,Tune 16, 2020, by Todd R Hansen
*DUE TO THE LARGE VOLUME
OF EXHIBITS, ONLY THE MOST
RELEVANT PAGES ARE
PROVIDED
� June 10, 2022
To: RHNN BoardMembers: Linda Bisby, Joe Bisby, Patricia Cooper, Sherri Duggan, Elaine Gatka, June Johnson, Dave Renaud
Re: Rollin gflb Maintenanee District No. 7. - Assessment Over -Charges We appreciate the opportunity to present our research that will substantiate assessmentover-charges conferred uponRollingHiils Maintenance District No. 7 property owners.
As evidenced by our exhibits, the assessment over -charges date back to 1997, following California voter's approval of Proposition 218.
To date, we have not received a courtesy of rep ly to our many questions previously presented to City Council and CivicMic.
If the Board agrees with our findings, we ask for your assistance in resolving this matter with the city
Background Information:
The Landsoningand LiAting Act of 1972 is a flexible toolusedby local government agencies to pay for lighting, landscapingand other improvements and services in public areas, including buildings owned or used by public agencies.
Therewas no limit to the amountofmoney thatproperty owners could becharged for assessments as no voter approval was required at that time.
As assessment costs and property taxes continued to skyrocket, voters sought property tax reliefwith the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. However, local governments continued to mold assessments into property taxes in such a way that avoided Proposition 13's restrictions. Therefore, to closethis loophole, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association Sponsored Proposition 218 to continue Proposition 13's legacy of protectingp roperty owners from local government over- reach.
In 1996, the California voters adopted Proposition 218, "The Right to Vote Act" which added Articles XIIIC and 3CM to the California Constitution. The Act was 4'N effective as of July 1, 1997.
.001-1
Pleasenote: SerpasRanchreferencedin all city documents is (Meadow Glen).
Legal Definitions in Proposition 218, (Article XIIID) are as follows:
The definition of an Assessment under Proposition 218 Article XMD (2):
Article XIIID, Section 2, defines "assessment" as any levy or chargeuponreal propertyby an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property, (Exhibit A, page 1).
The defimrtion of a "Special Benefit" under Article XMD Section 4:
The California Supreme Court determined that "under the plain language of Article XHID, a special benefit must affect the assessed property in away that is particular and distinct from its effect on other parcels and that other property in general and the public at large do not share. The characterization of a sp ecial benefit may dep end on whether a p arcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement through its direct relationship to the locality of the improvement, et sec., (Exhibit A, p age 3).
How do Agencies bn lenient Proposition 218 Article X]RD Section 4 ? Beginning July 1, 1997, with a few limited exceptions, all existing, new or increased assessment must comply with the substantive limitations and p rocedural requirements of Article XIIID, Section 4, including
the requirement that p alalic
agencies must hold a public hearing and provide property owners with he op portunity top rotest any proposed new assessment or increase to an existing assessment (Exhibit A, pages 1-2)
What is the Difference Between an Assessment and a Tag Fee or Cha e:
The key feature that distinguishes an assessment from a tax, a fee or a charge, is the existence of a "special benefit" to real property. Without identifying a suecial benefit, there can be no assessment (Richmond v Shasta Community Services District (2004) Cal.41h 409420). With the passage of Proposition 218 only special benefits can be assessed (Exhibit B, page 1 & 3).
n
Are Exemptions Allowed Under Article,' Section 5?
With the exception ofcertainexempt assessments, beginningJuly 1, 1997, all existing, new or increased assessments arerequired to comply withArticle NM, Section 5. An "existing" assessment is an assessment levied by the legislative body beforeNovember 6,1996. There are four exceptions that are exempt from the procedures and ballotapprovalprocess ofArticle XHID, Section4, (Exhibit A, p age 9 & Exhibit B, page 2). Those four exemptions are:
1) Any assessment imposed exclusivelyto finance the capital costs or maintenance and operations for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainne systems or vector control is exempt until the assessment is increased. 2) Any assessment imposed pursuant to petition signed by the persons owning all parcels subject to the assessment at the timethe assessment was imposed is exempt until proposed forincrease.
,,..� 3) Any assessment for theproceeds ofwhich are used to repay bonds, et sec., is exempt until proposed forincrease.
4) Any assessmentsthat previouslyreceived majority vote approval by the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment is exempt ung[ proposed for increase.
The Pu rpose of a Retailed Engineer's Report Under Article J£IM*- Before imposing an assessment, the public agency most fust identify all parcels that will receive a special benef itfrom the proposed imp rovements or services for which the assessment is proposed to be levied. Local governments mal impose assessments to pay the cost of providing a general benestto the community, (Exhibit A, page2).
On July 1, 1997, and thereafter, a licensed engineer is required to separate the general benefits from the special benefits to ensure that the special benefit requirement is met and quantify theproportionate specialbenefits derivedby each identified parcel, including those parcels owned or used by public agencies. -10-MkIl In addition, a proportionality analysis is required in determiningthe assessment (Exhibit A., pages 2 & 4).
3 000#-' Accordingto settled case law, if the engineer failed to demonstrate theproperty received a special benefit over, and above that shared by the generalpublic, the assessment is invalid (Exhibit A, page 4).
What Triggers an Assessment Increase?
Under the Proposition 218 Implementation Act, Government Code Section 53 750 (h)(1), An assessment is "increased" when the agency either increases the rate used to calculate the assessment a revises the methodology by which the rate is calculated, which results in an increased amount (Exhibit B, page 4).
Rolling Hills maintenance fluctuates year-to-yearbecause the annual maintenance work that was adopted by City Council includes "any other necessary maintenance work to sustain the integrity of the landscaping and lighting improvements within the district," See example in (Exhibit Q.
The Assistant City Mana eris Mistaken:
On April 15, 2019, David addressed the issue of over -charges at the City Council hearing. The matter was continued to June 4, 2019, so Council could consult with the City Attorney. In response, an Agenda Report was preparedby the Assistant City Manager at that time, Laura Snideman, dated June 4, 2019, stating in part, the following:
"The process of approving annual assessment amounts is sub`eet to the provisions of Pro osition 218. This district has adopted assessment ranges and assessments may be ad
'usted as reguired within the s ecific raa e
without Mguhring a Proposition 218 vote of the property owners", (Exhibit S).
First, Ms. Saidemanadmits that annual assessment amounts are subject to Proposition 218 _ As such, the city would have had knowledge that pale special benefits maybe assessed under Proposition 218. However, from 1997 to present, Roiling Hills District was not assessed for special benefits only.
Seton Ms. Snideman stated,"this district has adopted assessment ranes"• We assume by "this district" that she is referring to the Rolling Hills Maintenance �' District. However, the Rolling Hills Maintenance "District" has never had a
mechanism in place for adopting assessment ranges; nor do they have an HOA.
Additionally, we were unable to find public record substantiating that a majority of property owners adopted assessment ranges for Rolling Hills or Serpas Ranch.
Third, Ms.Snideman stated, "assessments may be adjusted as required within the specific range without requiring a Proposition 218 vote of the property owners". It appears that Ms. Snideman may have mis-interpreted the Proposition 218 Implementation Act under Government Code Section 53750 (h)(2)A), whereby, a tax, fee or charge is not deemed increased by an agency that (A) Adjusts the amount of charge in accordance with a schedule of adjustments, (including inflation), adopted by the agency prim- to 1996. or (B) Implements an increase— such as an inflation adjustment (Exhibit B, p age 4).
It appears Ms. Snideman may have believed that the city did not have to comp ly with Proposition 218 because annual increases were within sp ecific ranges, (i.e., schedule of adjustments). We assume she is referringto specific ranges 00%, aliegediv adopted for Rolling Hills in the amount of $200-$300 established in 1994 and $150-$250 for Serpas Ranch established in 1995; which are referenced in City Council Resolution 2019-107, (Exhibit P, page 2).
If the city believed that they did not have to comply with Proposition 218 because they relied on the language in Government Code Section 53 750(h)(2)A), they have a huge problem, because Government Code Section 53750 (h)(2)(A) & (B) DOES NOT APPLY TO ASSESSM-NTS. Itonly applies to a tax, fee, or charge; whereas an assessment pertains only to a special benefit, (Exhibit B, p age 4).
In view of the foregoing, the city was constitutionally required to comply with Proposition 218 (Article XM,) beginning July 1, 1997.
Rollin Hills�MainternaneeDistrict Over -Charges:
Without identifying a special benefit, there can be no assessment (Exhibit B, page 1). As such, annual engineer reports have never identified or separated special benefits from general benefits and therefore, Rolling Hills District has been a-, assessed general benefits since 1997, for the following services:
5 10
From 1997 to present, RollingHills Maintenance Districthas been assessed for the maintenance and operation ofpublic streets and sidewalks within the district, the maintenance of all city owned open space and (fence/fire breaks), maintenance and servicing of streetlights, maintenance of appurtenant all public facilities located in and alongpublic streets, roadways and rights-of-way, and the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing ofall landscaping on Martin, Hilborn and Lyon Roads, basins/drainage, all areas within Meadow Glen, their p ark and equipment, and all landscaping within the boundary ofthe district, including any other necessary maintenance work to sustainthe integrity of the landscaping and lighting improvements within the district.
Clearly, most ofthe maintenance listed above are general benefits to the community or to the public at large rather than special benefits to individual properties. However, only special benefits are assessable under Proposition 218 (Article XIM).
In addition, under Proposition 218, public facilities are no longer assessableto property owners and the maintenance of p arks and equipment is p aid for by the AO-•, city's General Fund.
Moreover, there are four districts formed under the Community Facilities District Act (CFD) of 1982, relative to the maintenance of open space.
CFD # 1 includes Rancho Solano, Rolling Hills and Paradise Valley, which pays for the acquisition and maintenance of open space. In addition, Rolling Hills CFD #1, has an agreement to pass-through revenues to the Solano Land Trust, (Exhibit E). Each Rolling Hills property owner pays $ 80 per year, per parcel on their annual property tax bill.
Currently, Rolling Hills Maintenance District is paying triple taxes; once for the maintenance of op en sp ace through annual property assessments, once again through regular property taxes and once again through CFD # 1.
Moreover, the city routinely receives funds from open space land -use contracts and/or grazing fees. If parcels within Rolling Hills Maintenance District are receiving any special benefit, then those leaseholders should be charged annual benefit assessments, because they receive benefits of the same caliber as other 1001.1 p arcels within the district.
11 00"b,
History of RoWing Hills & S as Ranch Over -ch es:
In Resolution 94-59, for fiscal year 1994-1995, Rolling Hills assessment was $198.14, and Serpas Ranch was $0.00 (see Exhibit F).
In Resolution 95-79, for fiscal year 1995-1996, RollingHills assessment was $196.23, and Serpas Ranch was $151.26, (Exhibit G).
Resolution 98-95, references the assessment for fiscal year 1997-1998, for Serpas Ranch as $93.97, and Rolling Hills as $236.91 and for fiscal year 1998-1999, Serpas Ranch assesumentwas $179.97, and Rolling Hills was $282.36, (Exhibit H) -
THIS GENERATED AN INCREASE ABOVE THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S ASSESSMENT
FOR BOTH ROLLING HILLS AND SERPAS RANCID TRIG GOUNG THE REQUIREMENTS &RUPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSITION 218, (ARTICLE XID), IN BOTH 1997 and 1998.
In any fiscal year's adoptedresolution after 1998-1999 that increased assessment amounts for Rolling Hills or Serpas Ranch, would trigger the requirements and implementation of Proposition 218, (Article X]®).
Failu ire to Provide Legally Com nlient Engineer's Report Since 1997_ You will find an example of a legally compliant Proposition 218 (Article XI M) Engineer's Reportin (Exhibit 1). This examplewas preparedin October 2020, by NBS, for the city of Sierra Madre, California. Also, see their City Council Resolutionwhich legally adopted Proposition 218 (Article XHW) of the California Consdtution, (Exhibit J).
Please compare Fairfield's adopted Engineer Reports (in Exhibit K), with Sierra Madre's Engineer Report (in Exhibit I). Clearly, the Sierra Madre report details Improvements, Benefits, Special Benefit Distribution and the Separation and Quantification of General Benefits, whereas Fairfield's engineer reports do not.
BeginningJuly 1, 1997, to present, all Fairfield City Council Resolutions were adopted pursua ntto the Landscapingand LightingActof 1972 and/or Section 22565 of the California Streets & Highway Code. They shouldhavebeen adopted also pursuantto Proposition 218, (Article XIIID), (Exhibit J). 12 � The Public Agency has the Burden of Proof:
The burden ofproof is on the public agency to demonstrate compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Article XlMD, Section 4, (Exhibit A, page 8).
In Silicon Valley Taxpayer's Associationvs Santa Clara Open SpaceAuthority, the court determined, a local agency acting in a legislative capacity is prohibited from exercising its discretion in a way that violates the constitution or undermines the constitution's effect (Exhibit A, page 9).
The City's Fiscal Ememency, Measu re P:
Measure P was a local ballot measure on November 6, 2012, that imposed a one - cent increase in sales tax for five years. The measure has now been extended to 2033.
The ballot question asked ofthe voters, was in part, concerning a one -cent sales tax increase necessary for the maintenance of streets, streetlights, parks, recreation services and other services (Exhibit Q.
Where slid that money go? The Civil Grand Jury asked that very same question per the Grand -Jury report lira 2019-2020 (available online.) As such, the Grand Jury concluded that Fairfield's accounting system cannot specifically track how the money was spent, et. sec.
According to Mayor Price, the money was deposited into the General Fund and can be used for any municipal purpose (Exhibit M).
If that's the case, why were voters purposely misled, as the voting ballot disclosed specifically how the money would be spent. How much ofthat money was spent on the maintenance of streets, streetlights, parks, recreation services and other services?
Ci Councils 1991 Resolution for ResidentialMainienauceDistricts:
Through Public Records Request, the city was asked to provide documents that refer to any "Special"Benefit" assessm(nts conferredto properties/parcels located in Rolling Hills Maintenance District; however, they did not identify any documents relative to "special benefits". Instead, the city provided City Council's 13 t00%\ adopted Resolution 91-213B,from July 23,1991(ExhibitN, pages 1-4).
Resolution 91-213B established policy for development, maintenance and financing standards for maintenance districts. Since the city has no record of another resolution being adopted after 1991, Resolution 91-213B remained in effect since July 23,1991, to present day.
Of particular interest is the section regarding double taxation; whereby property owners are double taxed because they pay property taxes to fund the maintenance of street lighting and roadside landscaping throughout the city and through their annual property assessments (Exhibit N, page 1).
In addition, property owners are double taxed for arterial median maintenance, property owners pay to maintain median landscaping that run through their neighborhoods which also creates a city-wide benefit, traveled by citizens at large.
To reduce double taxes for property owners, the city would apply General Fund Contributions to maintenance districts to cover payment of General and Administrative expenses, to pay 100% to fund streetlights and to pay 50% to irrigate and maintain median landscaping within any Residential ,■� Maintenance District (Exhibit N, page 2).
However, we don't believe the city has kept their part of the bargain. For instance, Rolling Hills was assessed around $10,000 annually for streetlights and $2,000+ for PG&E that is supposed to be paid for by the city. Further, many annual General Fund contributions totaled less than $38,000; and more recently, Rolling Hills was charged around $50,000 for allocation and administrative costs, that should have been p aid by the city's General Fund.
In 1991, the city's General Fund contributed $38,261 to the RollingHills Maintenance District, (Exhibit N, page 4). Even though Rolling Hills current maintenance assessments have increased several hundred thousand dollars, the city's contribution decreased to approximately $35,375 in fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, (Exhibit O, pages 1-2).
According to Engineer Reports, water charges for 2018-2019 were $118,257, in 2019-2020,$105,000 and for 2020-2021,$109,200. However, the city failed to substantiate that the water assessments charged Rolling Hills are 50% of the total amount incurred to irrigate the median and landscaping within Rolling Hills ,Oft\ Residential Maintenance District.
14 Moreover, the city has special water rights for Lake Berryessa water, sets prices for water consumption and may be adding an unjustified profit mark-up to the irrigation water price being charged Rolling Hills District.
Were City Actions NsgAgentor Purposeful?
Do you believe the city's mistakes went unnoticed for 25 years? Or did the city knowingly and purposely ignore the requirements of Proposition 218 (Article XE[[D)?
Research suggests that the city's conduct was intentional. This is based upon the fact that City Council Agendas and Adopted Resolutions are written in great detail and with particular attention to legal compliance. If the city believed that they were legally exempt from Proposition 218 (Article XIIID) requirements, their agendas and resolutions adopted after July 1, 1997, would have so stated.
Additionally, the city is adamant the Rolling Hills maintenance amounts never ^, exceeded their alleged adopted ranges; for Rolling Hills ($200-$300 in 1994) and Serpas Ranch $150-5250 in 1995), (Exhibit P, page 2).
Even though Resolution (2019-68) stated that the proposed assessments do not exceed the adopted ranges for this district, the amounts City Council adopted certainly do exceed their assessment ranges. Here City Council arbitrarily raised the maximum ranges for Rolling Hills from $300 to $314.57 and Serpas Ranch from $250 to $332.16, (Exhibit P, p age 1). Why would City Council do this?
It appears, City Council guKRosely increased the maintenance ran es to make it look as though the assessment amount did not exceed their maximum assessment ranges and therefore, would not trigger Proposition 218 (Article XIIID) requirements.
To date, the city has not responded to David's Public Records Request dated May 25, 2022, for documentation relative to the adoption of assessment ranges/range maximums for Rolling Hills and Serpas Ranch. As of June 2, 2022, city staffwas reviewing the request and on June 6 & 7, 2022, David again requested this .�, information (Exhibit T, pages 1-4).
10 15
/O �
Upon receipt of the requested information, we can determine if City Council legally adopted minimum and maximum assessment ranges for Rolling Hills and Serp as Ranch or if City Council fabricated assessment range amounts so that the city did not have the expense of comp lying with Proposition 218, (Article XMD).
The City's Contract with NBS/CivicMic:
The City's contractwith NBS on August 30, 2021, (available online), includes review of all Maintenance Districts, including Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance for District No. 7, RollingHills.
Their services include engineering services, developing a new budget, determining district boundaries, recommendation of assessment rates and a "special vs general" benefit assessment based on current case law and industry standards, to support fiscal year 2023 -2024. if the city hired competent employees, they would have no need to contract with an outside agency to implement Proposition 218, (ArticleXIDD).
We have been told that Rolling Hills District will be charged approximately ^ $ 80,000 for NBS/CivicMic services. However, as stated (on page 9), under the terms ofResolution 91 213B, the City's General Fund is to cover payment of General and Administrative costs for all Maintenance Districts.
The worst-case scenario is that Rolling Hills District can only be charged a percentage of the $ 80,000 attributable to "special benefits" only.
Civic Mies Zoom Meeting on June2 3 2022:
On June 2, 2022, several Maintenance Districts were rep resented via Zoom and asked CivicMic whether their district or individual property owners would have input into the preparation of the Engineer's Report.
CivicMic rep lied, "NO"; neither the district norproperty owners wouldhave any say whatsoever. Only the city and the engineer would be allowed to determine assessments. Our question is, why can't property owners participate? What is the purpose of Community Outreach, Community Meetings and Workshops if the property owner's opinions and suggestions have no bearing on /,M%N the outcome?
11 16
� CivicM es Presentations to Property Owners:
We know CivicMic had access to city records because they stated, "The maximum assessment rate for Rolling Hills is $300 and $250 for Serpas Ranch. The rates have notchanged since the 1990's and there are no authorized provisions in the rate formula for annual increases", (Exhibit U).
However, the maximum assessment range was, in fact, exceeded in 2019, per (Exhibit P, page 1-2). In addition, CivicMic's website provided copies ofRolling Hills LLMD #7 City Council Resolutions (2020-111 and 2021-166) and Engineer Reports for fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. Their website also mentions for fiscal year 2021-2022, the landscape budget will be reduced to $81 k/yr. Why is this important?
It's imp ortant because CivicMic told property owners, thatRollingHiils deficit occurred in 2022, due to rising landscaping costs in excess of $500,000, that all -of - a -sudden snuck -up on the city. However, this is incorrect.
Our exhibits substantiate the escalation of landscaping assessments began in 2019, /ANN when the maximumrange for Rolling Hills and Serpas Ranch were exceeded, (Exhibit P, page 1-2), followed by a $255,412 deficit in H2O -2021, (Exhibit K, page 3). Apparently, the $255,412 deficit was satisfied with existing funds, (Exhibit D).
In addition, property owners were told to restore normal landscape maintenance in 2022, it necessitated a $410,00 loan from the city. Yet, according to Rolling Hills District 2021-2022 budget, their total revenue was $350,548 and total expenses were $421,005, leaving a deficit of $70,457 in 2022, (Exhibit K, page 3).
Therefore, it is unclear why Rolling Hills maintenance was reduced to $81,(00 and why the $410,000loan was necessary.
Why has RollingHills District been assessed annually for city employeebenefits? A p artial list includes, social security taxes, medical, dental/visionbenefits, health plan benefits, leave time, insurance and sick leave. For comp lete list see, (Exhibit K, page 3).
Moreover, we take issue with CivicMic's chosen language to describe Rolling Hills increased maintenance assessments. Most City Council documents refer to 12 17
r"I
Rolling Hills and Serpas Ranch annual maintenance assessment as being within a specific range. Therefore, City Council would most likely describe an increase in assessment amounts as" Exceeding their specific range". However, CivicMic stated, "there are no authorized provisions in the rate formula for annual increases", (Exhibit U).
Why did CivicMic choose to use the words ("rate formula") to describe Rolling Hills maintenance assessment increase in 2022?
It's because, effective on July 1, 1997, an assessment became "increased" when the agency either increases the rate or methodologyby which the rate is calculated which results in an increased amount (Government Code Section 53750(h)(1), (ExhibitB, page4).
CivicMic replaced thecity's words "specific range" with the word "irate" (taken from Proposition 218's language in 1997), and then added the word "formula" to make it appear as though Rolling Hills assessment ranges have not increased since the 1990's, and therefore, Proposition 218 requirements have not applied to the city since 1997, (Exhibit B, page 4).
David's Meeting with Public Works Manaecr:
Over -the -years, David has attempted to resolve Rolling Hills maintenance issues with the city without result and his many letters to City Council and personal testimony have been ignored. In addition, his proposed Landscape Plan for Rolling Hills was outright rejected by city staff, in 2019, (Exhibit Q).
He also met with the Public Works Manager on January 9, 2019, and around this same time, he gave testimony to City Council without success. Public Works did resp and to David's email dated December 27, 2018, (Exhibit R).
Moreover, David's efforts since that time, have proven unsuccessful.
RoUinp, Hills DistricC The City's Cash Cow:
Everyone enjoys living in a well-maintained, desirable neighborhood and surrounding community, and as such, we are willing to p ay our fair share of maintenance costs.
18 13
However, City Council, is prohibited from exercising its discretion in a way that violates the constitution or undermines the constitution's effect (Exhibit A, page 9). Moreover, Rolling Hills District's constitutional rights continue to be violated today; the city's conduct has been unconscionable; and we deserve better from elected officials.
Perhaps you don't mind paying more money for annual maintenance; while others struggle on fixed incomes. However, none of us should remain silent knowing that Rolling Hills and Serpas Ranch has been over -charged at least 50% since 1997.
Rolling Hills and other Maintenance Districts are owed considerable money from the city and as such, they must correct this matter for all concerned.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Thacker
2029 Moss Valley Drive
(707) 344-4492
Sincerely,
Barbara Pascone
2208 Candlewood Drive
(650) 787-5740
19 14
*DUE TO THE LARGE VOLUME
OF EXHIBITS, ONLY THE MOST
RELEVANT PAGES ARE
PROVIDED
20 References:
Article 4.6, Proposition 218 Omnibus Imp lementation Act, hat s:lllaw_ ustia.corn
California Legislative Analyst's Office 1996,
www.lao.ca.gov
California Special Districts Association, Proposition 218, 2013, htti2s:// www.waterboards.ca.gov
City Council Resolution 88-166
City Council Resolution 88-233
City Council Agenda May 16,1989
City Council Agenda 8 9-7 7
City Council Resolution 89-135
City Council Resolution 91-213B
City Council Resolution 93-76
City Council Agenda, April 19,1994
City Council Resolution 94-59
City Council Agenda August 2,1994
City Council Agenda May 2, 1995
City Council Resolution 95-70
City Council, Resolution 95-79
City Council Agenda July 16,1996
City Council Resolution 96-161
City Counci, Resolution 98-95
City Council Resolution No. 2019-68
City Council 2019-107, Agenda Report & Engineer's Report City Council Resolution 2020-111
City Council Resolution 2021-166 & Engineer's Report
City Council Agenda, NBS Contract, August 30, 2021
City Council Agenda Report February 15, 2022
City Council, Resolution 202 2-2 8
City Council; the citing's above and Resolutions, Agendas and Documents were researched from 1988 -present, at Laserliche's search engine ^ htt s://eservices_fairficid.ca.aov & ht s:lleservices.weblinklsearch 1 21
e�
References:
City of Fairfield 2019-2020, Civil Grand Jury Report
httgs:// www.solano.courts.ca.izov/divisions/gand-iiiry City offairfield, RollingHills Maintenance Budget 2019, Community Facilities Districts & Parks,
www.fairfield.cazo .
City of Fairfield 2021-2022, Budget summary, page 200, 201, 232, Community facilities Districts & Parks,
www. fa i rf i eld. ca. eo v
City of Fairfield Property Assessment Ballot, 2013, City Clerk Form for #'s APN: 0046-300-180-300.
City of Hayward, Adopting 218 Procedures,
www. hayward-ca.gvv'/sites/default/files/documents,'Resolution-Adopting-Ballot City of Sierra Madre, City Council adopted Resolution & Engineer Report, in compliancewith Proposition 218, November 10, 2020,
www.cit ofsierramadre_com
CivicMic online, for Rolling Hills fiscal year 2021-2022 htt s:/Icivimic.com/cit-of-fairfield
Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, 1978, Proposition 13, https://h-ita,orJproposit ion- l
HowardJarvis Taxpayer Association, 1996, Proposition 218. ht s://hjta.orJproposition-218
Lanscaping and LightingAct of 1972,
x"v,A,.california-taxdata.com/pdf/1972LLact/pdf
22 AMIN
References:
Proposition218 Implementation GuWe2007, Pages 21,22 & 30 htt s:// www.lawiustia.orgr , sots ces/codes/califoi-nia Proposition 26 & 218 League of California Cities, 2007
hat s:l/cacities.or
Proposition 218 Implementation Guide, League of California Cities, 2007 hat s://cacities.or
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, (case #S 136468), decided July 1, 2008.
Solano County Elections Office online,
/Omftl http://batiotpedia.org/solano-countv-caiifomia-ba[ lot-mcasures n
Streets and Highway Code (22000-22679) 1972,
https://Icgalinfo.legislamm-ca.gov
The Daily Republic, Measure P, June 16,202-0, by Todd RHansen 23 24
&RhAssessments
(Article XIII D, Sections 4 and 5)
Assessments As noted previously, Article XIII D, section 2 defines are levied ,assessment" as any levy or charge upon real = pursuant - to statutory property by an agency for a special benefit conferred authority or, in u op n the real -P - TR9_erty. Assessments are sometimes some instances referred to as "special assessments" or "special charter city benefit assessments;' and are not to be confused with authority. Of
significance is a tax assessment or special tax.AOTaxes are generally the requirement imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return thatthe for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted. property must
be specially An assessment, however, is a charge levied and benefitted imposed on property to pay for special benefits that by the parcels receive from local government improvements improvements (e.g., water facilities, sewer facilities, undergrounding or services
for which the of utilities, or landscape improvements) or services assessment is (e.g., maintenance of storm water facilities, landscape imposed. improvements, or street lighting improvements).
Assessments are levied pursuant to statutory
authority or, in some instances charter city authority.
Of significance is the requirement that the property
must be specially benefitted by the improvements or
services for which the assessment is imposed.
Beoinnina Julv 1, 1997, with a few limited exceptions, all existing -42 new, or increased assessments must comply with the substantive limitations and procedural requirements of Article X€11 D. section 4, including the requirement that public agencies must hold a public hearing and provide property owners with an opportunity to protest any proposed new assessment or increase to an existing assessment. An overview of these substantive and procedural requirements follows.
Compliance with the Substantive Provisions ofArticle Xlll D, Section 4 Before imposing an assessment, a public agency must first identify all parcels that will receive a special benefit from the proposed improvements or services for which the assessment is proposed to be levied '3 The assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California." Only special benefits are assessable, and local governments may not impose assessments to pay For the cost of providing a general benefit to the community.A5 If a proposed project provides both special benefits and general benefits, the assessment engineer's report must separate the benefits, and only the special benefits may be assessed. 4The requirement that a public agency separate the general benefits from the special benefits helps ensure that the special benefit requirement _ is met" Moreover, every parcel that receives a special benefit from the proposed improvements or services must be assessed, including any parcels owned or used by a public agency, the State of California, or the United States "s The assessment en ineer's report must quantify the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcelsubject to the proposed assessment in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of the public improvements or services being provided, .and must calculate the amount of the assessment to be imposed on each identified Anft, parcel,50 Additionally, no assessment may be imposed that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit that is conferred on a parcel.51 The special benefit and proportionality requirements are perhaps best understood as being interrelated, not separate, requirements. The propartinnali�t r requirement ensures that the aQg�egafe assessment imposed on all parcels is distributed among all assessed parcels in proportion to the special benefits conferred on each parte . The special benefit requirement is thus part and parcel of the proportionality requirement.52 26 L
Special Benefit Analysis: '7f everything
is special, then nothing is special"
The Supreme Court's decision in Silicon
Valley Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara
Open Space Authority best illustrates
the issues that a special district should
consider in determining whether a
proposed assessment complies with
the special benefit and proportionality
requirements of Article XIII D, section 4.53
Prior to the adoption of Proposition 218,
the Santa Clara Open Space Authority
formed an assessment district in 1992
pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting
Act of 1972 (California Streets & Highways
Code sections 22500 et. seq.) for the
purpose of acquiring and preserving open
space land within Santa Clara County. In
2000, Santa Clara Open Space Authority
determined it needed additional funding to
purchase open space land and considered
forming a second assessment district for
this purpose.
All property within Santa Clara County
was proposed to be assessed. The
assessment engineer's report prepared
in connection with the proposed
assessment set the assessment for all
single-family residences at the same rate
and provided a formula for estimating
the special benefit that other properties
received. The specific properties to
be acquired for open space were not
identified in the assessment engineer's
report_ Based on the weighted ballots
submitted, the assessment was approved
by a majority of the property owners.
The assessments were challenged on
the ground that Santa Clara Open Space
Authority failed to satisfy the special
benefit and proportionality requirements
of Article XIII D, section 4.
The California Supreme Court
acknowledged that Article XIII D,
section 4 requires that the general
enhancement of property value is not
a special benefit and that "general
benefit" includes benefits conferred
generally on real property located
within an assessment district.54The
court, however, refined the definition of
"special benefit" by determining that
"under the plain language of article
XIII D, a special benefit must affect
the assessed property in a way that is
articular and distinct from its effect on
other parcels and that real property in
general and the public at large do not
share" 5-1 By way of example, the court
recognized that if an assessment district
is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit
is conferred throughout the district does
not make it general rather than special.
In that circumstance, the characterization
of a benefit may depend on whether
the parcel receives a direct advantage
from the improvement through its
direct relationship to the locality of the
improvement (e.g., proximity to a park) or
receives an indirect, derivative advantage
resulting from the overall public benefits
of the improvement (e.g., general
enhancement of the district's property
values).56
27 13
In Silicon Valley, the court noted that "[a)
Ithough it is reasonable to conclude that
'quality -of -life' to people living in, working
in, and patronizing businesses in the
district will, in tum, benefit property in
the district, such derivative benefits are
only'general benefits conferred on real
property located in the district or to the
public at large: "'The court concluded
that the assessment engineer's report had
failed to recognize that the "public at large"
means all members of the public and not
just transient visitors 18 Further, the report
assumed that people and property in the
district would receive no general benefit
and only special benefits. "But under these
circumstances, '51f everything is special,
then nothing is special. " '
The court also found that the assessment
engineer's report did not show any
distinct benefits to particular parcels
of property beyond the benefits of the
general public using and enjoying the
open space received. The report did not
identify any specific open space to be
acquired with the proposed assessment,
and thus the report did not demonstrate
any specific special benefits that
assessed parcels would receive from their
direct relationship to the locality of the
improvement. Hence, the court concluded
the assessment was invalid because
the report failed to demonstrate that the
assessed properties received a particular
and distinct special benefit over and above
that shared by the district's property in
general or the public at lar e.W
Proportionality Analysis
In making determinations of proportionality,
the courts have determined that the
amount of the assessment to be imposed
on parcels must not be based on a desired
budget or on a property -by -property basis.
Instead, an assessment to be imposed
on parcels must be based on the entirety
of the cost of the improvement or
services. Two cases demonstrate how an
assessment may fail the proportionality
requirements of Article XIII D, section 4(a).
In Silicon Valley Taxpayers'Association,
discussed above, the California Supreme
Court found that the assessment
engineer's report failed the proportionality
requirements of Proposition 218, largely
because the special assessment was
based on the Santa Clara Open Space
Authority's projected annual budget
for its open space acquisition and
maintenance program rather than on a
calculation or estimation of the cost of
the particular public improvement to be
financed with the assessments' The
purpose of assessments is to require
that properties receiving a special benefit
from public improvements pay for the
public improvements, not to fund an
agency's ongoing budget .62 Ultimately,
the court found that the assessment
engineer's report failed to identify with
sufficient specificity the "permanent public
improvement" that the assessment would
finance, failed to estimate or calculate
the cost of improvements, and failed
to directly connect the proportionate
28 iJ
�u'::i:i'('
costs and benefits received The court reasoned that
from the "permanent public
an assessment is not measured by
improvement" to the specific
the precise amount of special benefits
assessed properties 63 "[A]
enjoyed by the assessed property.
n assessment calculation that
Instead, an assessment reflects costs
works backward by starting with
allocated to relative benefit received.
an amount taxpayers are likely
As a general matter. an assessment
to pay, and then determines an
represents the entirety of the cost of the
annual budget based thereon,
improvement or property -related service,
does not comply with the law
less any amounts attributable to general
governing assessments, either
benefits (which may not be assessed),
before or after Proposition 218.."61
allocated to individual properties in
proportion to the relative special benefit
In Town of Tiburon v. Bonander,
conferred on the property. Proportional
theTown ofTiburon formed
special benefit is the "equitable,
an assessment district for the
nondiscriminatory basis" upon which a
purpose of undergrounding
project's assessable costs are spread
utilities PThe assessment
among benefited properties. Thus, the
engineer's report created
"reasonable cost of the proportional
three benefit zones for which
special benefit; which an assessment
the construction costs were
may not exceed, simply reflects an
determined and separately
assessed property's proportionate share
apportioned. The court found that
of total assessable costs as measured by
the benefit zones were not based
relative special benefits 67
on differential benefits enjoyed
within each zone, but instead
Furthermore, "proportionate special benefit
were based largely on variances
is a function of the total cost of a project, not
in the costs of placing the utilities
costs determined on a property -by -property or a
underground in each of the zones.
neighborhood -by -neighborhood basis:'6s
The court concluded that this
apportionment methodology
Finally, theTown excluded certain properties from
resulted in properties that received
the district even though the excluded properties
identical special benefits paying
would receive special benefits. By excluding those
vastly different assessments, and
properties from the district, the assessments
therefore did not proportionately
on properties included in the district necessarily
allocate the assessments within
exceeded the proportional special benefit conferred
the district according to relative
on them. In effect, the assessed properties were
special benefrt.O6
subsidizing the special benefit enjoyed by the non -
assessed properties 69
29 `�
As a consequence of these court
Compliance with the procedural requirements
decisions, a special district that is
ofArticle X111 D, Section 4(b)
considering the formation of an
assessment district must carefully
Notice and Ballots
identify with sufficient specificity:
In order to impose an assessment on a property,
(1) the specific services or
a special district must hold a public hearing, mail
improvements to be funded by
advance notice of the public hearing to the record
the assessment; (2) the special
owner7* of each parcel proposed to be assessed,
benefit that properties within the
and conduct a ballot protest proceeding." The
proposed assessment district
assessment ballot protest proceeding is not
will receive from the services or
an election or a vote for purposes of California
improvements; (3) an estimate
Constitution Article 11, nor is it subject to the
or calculation of the cost of
limitations and requirements of the California
the services or improvements;
Elections Code governing electioms
and (4) the direct connection of
any proportionate costs of and
The notice must be mailed not less than forty -
special benefits received from the
five calendar days prior to the public hearing, and
services or improvements to the
must include the following information:
specific assessed properties in
the amount of the proposed assessment to
relation to the entirety of the cost
be imposed on the identified parcel;
of the improvements or services.
the total amount to be imposed in the
The special benefit must affect
entire assessment district;
the parcels to be assessed in a
the duration of the assessment;
way that is particular and distinct
the reason for the assessment;
from its effect on other parcels
the basis upon which the assessment was
and that real property in general
calculated;
and the public at large do not
the date, time, and location of the public
share. The assessment engineer's
hearing on the proposed assessment;
report must measure and reflect
a ballot; and
the special benefits that will
a summary of the procedures applicable to
accrue to each particular parcel
the completion, return, and tabulation of
within the assessment district.
the ballots, including a disclosure statement
Consequently, an assessment
that if the ballots opposing the proposed
that is levied at the same rate
assessment exceed the ballots submitted
for all parcels of property within
in favor of the assessment (referred to as a
an assessment district in some
majority protest), the assessment may not
circumstances may not meet the
be imposed?'
proportionality requirements of
Article XIII D, section 4.
A"'N
30 /
Sii°.._;i:K
Because an assessment is imposed
on property, electors residing within
an existing or proposed assessment
district who do not own property
within the assessment district are not
entitled to submit a ballot T The face
of the envelope mailed to the property
owner with the ballot and notice must
contain, in at least sixteen -point type,
the following statement in substantially
the following form: "OFFICIAL BALLOT
ENCLOSED"75The ballot must include
the special district's address for the
receipt of any completed ballot and
a place for the property owner to
indicate his or her name, a reasonable
identification of the parcel subject to
the proposed assessment, and his or
her opposition to or support for the
proposed assessment?m
The ballot must be in a form that conceals
its contents once it is sealed and
delivered by the person submitting the
balloOTo be tabulated, a ballot must be:
signed by the record owner or his
or her authorized representative;
mailed or otherwise delivered to
the address indicated in the notice;
and
received by the special district
prior to the close of the public
hearing.'8
All assessment ballots must remain
sealed until the conclusion of the public
hearing,79 but any person who submitted
a ballot may change or withdraw the ballot
prior to the close of the public hearing.°
Public Hearing
The public hearing must be conducted
on the date and time stated in the notice
and must not be held less than forty-
five calendar days after the notice of the
proposed assessment and public hearing
is mailed to the record owner(s) of each
identified parcel B' The day of mailing is
excluded from computation of the forty-
five day mailing period az At the public
hearing, the special district must consider
all objections or protests to the proposed
assessments,83 but should consider only
valid ballots when determining whether a
majority protest exists. The public hearing
may be continued from time to time.
The agency's governing body may also
continue the tabulation of the ballots to a
different time and location accessible to
the public, provided that the it announces
the time and location of the continued
tabulation at the public hearing a5
Determining Whether There is a Majority
Protest
At the conclusion of the public hearing,
an impartial person designated by the
agency—someone who does not have
a vested interest in the outcome of the
proposed assessment—must tabulate
the ballots that were submitted and not
withdrawn 66 An impartial person includes
the clerk or secretary of the agency.3' If
the agency uses its personnel to tabulate
the ballots, or if it contracted with a vendor
for the tabulation and the vendor or its
affiliates participated in the research,
design, engineering, public education,
or promotion of the assessment, the
31 ��
ballots must be unsealed and tabulated in
public view at the conclusion of the public
hearing.96 All interested persons must have
an opportunity to meaningfully monitor the
tabulation process 19
As noted above, the tabulation of the
assessment ballots may be continued to a
different time or location accessible to the
public if the governing body of the special
district announces the time and location at
the public hearing9°The person tabulating
the ballots may use technological methods
such as punch cards or optically readable
(e -g., bar-coded) ballots9'
A majority protest exists if, at the
conclusion of the public hearing, the
ballots submitted and not withdrawn
opposing the assessment exceed
the ballots submitted in favor of the
assessment.92 he ballots must be
`weighted according to the proportional
financial obligation of each affected
property.93 By way of example, if property
owner As assessment is $10 and he
submits a ballot in opposition to the
proposed assessment, and property
owner B's assessment is $1 and she
submits a ballot in support of the
assessment, property owner As ballot
would be weighted ten times more than
property owner B's ballot.
If more than one record owner of a parcel
subject to the proposed assessment
submits a ballot, the amount of the
proposed assessment must be allocated
to each ballot submitted in proportion to
the respective record ownership interests,
or, as established to the satisfaction of
the special district, by documentation
provided by the record owners.46 If a
majority protest exists, the assessments
may not be imposed.95
Public Records
During and after the tabulation,
assessment ballots and the information
used to determine their weight are
considered to be disclosable public
records96The ballots must be preserved
for a minimum of two years, after which
they may be destroyed .97
Meeting the Burden of Prod
In the event of a challenge to the
validity of an assessment, the burden
is on the public agency to demonstrate
compliance with the substantive and
procedural requirements of Article XIII
D, section 4. Prior to the adoption of
Proposition 218, in cases challenging
assessments, the courts gave great
deference to local legislative bodies'
determinations regarding what lands
were benefited and what amount of
benefits should be assessed against
the parcels of land within a proposed
assessment district.' In accordance
with that deferential standard of review,
special assessments prior to Proposition
218 were presumed to be valid and the
burden was on the person challenging
the assessment to demonstrate that the
record before the legislative body did not
clearly demonstrate special benefit or
proportionality.99
32 9
In Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, 100
discussed previously, the California
Supreme Court acknowledged that
Proposition 218 targeted this deferential
standard of review. Because special
assessment law prior to Proposition
216 was primarily statutory, the
court reasoned that the doctrine of
constitutional separation of powers
served as the foundation for a more
deferential standard of review by the
courts. With the adoption of Article
XIII D, section 4, the validity of an
assessment became a constitutional
question. A local agengy acting in a
18 islative capacity is prohibited from
exercising its discretion in a way that
violates the constitution or undermines
the constitution's effect,_ and a court is
charged with enforcing the constitution
in order to effectuate its purposes.
More specifically, Article XIII D. section
4(f) shifted the burden of demonstrating
special benefit and proportionality in any
legal action contesting the validity of an
assessment to the agency establishing
the assessment. The court recognized,
however, that the provisions of Article
XIII D, section 4(f) do not specify the
scope of the burden now placed on
public agencies. Consequently, the
court concluded that courts should
exercise their independent judgment in
reviewing local agency decisions that
have determined whether benefits are
special and whether assessments are
proportional to special benefits within
the meaning of Article XIII D, section 4_
Exemptions (Artiota X1111 D sec8r 7 n 51
Any assessment existing on November 6,
1996 that falls within one of four exceptions
is exempt from the procedures and ballot
protest approval process of Article XIII
D. section 4 described above."" The four
exceptions are as follows:
Any assessment imposed exclusively
to finance the capital costs or
maintenance and operation expenses
for sidewalks, streets,102 sewers,
water,103 flood control, drainage
systems, or vector control. Subsequent
inrreases in such assessments shall be
subject to the procedures and approval
process spt forth in section 4.
Any assessment imposed pursuant
to a petition signed by the persons
owning all of the parcels subject
to the assessment at the time the
assessment is initially imposed.
Subsequent increases in such
assessments shall be subject to the
'Procedures and approval process set
forth in section 4.7p8
Any assessment the proceeds of which
are exclusively used to repay bonded
indebtedness of which the failure
to pay would violate the Contract
Impairment Clause of the Constitution
of the United States.
Any assessment that previously
received majority voter approval from
the voters voting in an election on the
issue of the assessment. Subsequent
increases in those assessments shall
be subject to the procedures and
approval process set forth in Section 4.
33 lamhl
Pursuant Government Code section 53753.5, if an agency has complied with the notice, protest, and hearing requirements of Government Code section 53753, or if an agency is not required to comply with those requirements because it is falls within one of the four exceptions identified above, then those requirements do not apply in subsequent fiscal years unless: (1) the assessment methodology is changed to increase70$ the assessment; or (2) the amount of the assessment is proposed to exceed an assessment formula or range of assessments adopted by the agency in accordance with Article XIII D, section. 4 or Government Code section 53753.1OG Table 2
Purpose
Procedwal RequimmenWl
Approval
Fund facilities and
(1) Hold noticed public hearing.
If a majority of the
services, e.g., water
(2) Written notice of public hearing and ballots must be mailed to property owners
and sewer facilities,
property owners at least 45 days prior to protest hearing. protest the levy of
landscape and
(3) Notice must provide: (a) the total amount chargeable to the entire the assessment, the
lighting facilities
district: Ib► the amount chargeable to the owner's parcel: (c) the assessment may not
and services, park
duration of the payments (d) the reason for the assessment and the be imposed. Ballots
facilities and services
basis upon which it vns calculated. (el the date, time, location of are weighted based
the public hearing; (f) a ballot: (g) a summary of the procedures for on the financial
resuming and tabulating the ballots: (h) a statement that if a majority obligation of each
protest exists the assessment ill not be imposed.
property owner.
(4) The resolution authorizing the special benefit assessment may (a) state a range of rates or amounts; or (b) provide that rate may be adiusted for inflation pursuant to defined fa, mula.
Ill additio al pnsde _s mat be sequirst d-4'srdirn an he SLatutocy a:nharity fa: sdoorno tF.=_ specfic assessmart 34 D
}
Ili. Assessments
Introduction and Overview
"... [A) special assessment, sometimes described as a local assessment, is a charge imposed on particular real property for a local public improvement of direct benefit to that property, as for example a street improvement, lighting improvement, irrigation improvement, sewer connection, drainage improvement, or flood control improvement.
The rationale of special assessment is that the assessed property has received a special benefit over and above that received by the general public The general public should not be required to pay for special benefits for the few, and the few specially benefited should not be subsidized by the general public." Solvang Municipal Improvement District v.
Board of Supervisors (1980)112 Cal -App -3d 545.
Proposition 218 defines "assessment" as "any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property." Cal. Const., art. XIDD, § 2(b). A special assessment, sometimes called a "benefit assessment," is a charge generally levied upon parcels of real property to pay for benefits the parcels receive from local improvements. Special assessments are levied according to statutory authority granted by the Legislature or, in some instances, local charters. Distinguishing among taxes, fees and assessments can be difficult and often depends on the context in which the distinction is made. See, e.g., Sinclair Paint Co. v. Bd. o f Equal. (1997)15 Cal. 4th 866, 874875.) For example, taxes, assessments and property -related fees all may be imposed on property. Cal. Const, art. XIIII), § 3. The key feature that distin zaishes an assessment from a tax, fee or charge is the existence of a ecial benefit to real prop Y. Without iden i a s eciai benefit, there can be no assessment Richmond v_ Shasta Community Services District (2004) 32 CalAth 409, 420; Ventura Group Ventures, Inc. v.
Ventura Port Dist. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1.08.9, 1106. Although assessments are open held to be an exercise of the sovereign's power to tare, "a special assessment is not, in the constitutional sense, a tax at all-" Spring Street Co. v City of los Angeles (1915) 170 Cal.24, 29. Again, the existence of special benefit is what also distinguishes assessments from general and special taxes. City Council of the City of San Jose v South (1983)146 Cal. App. 3d 320, 332; Solvang Mun.
Improvement Dist v Board of Supervisors (1980)112 Cal. App. 3d 545, 552-553; County of Fresno v. Malmstrom (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 974, 984- In general, taxes are imposed for revenue purposes, rather than in return for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted_ Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, 874.
Assessments that are subject to Proposition 218 are only those that are imposed on real property.
Assessments imposed on businesses pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989 are not imposed on real property and, therefore, are not subject to Proposition 218.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of San Diego (1999) 72 CalAppAth 230. Benefit assessments subject to Proposition 218 must also be distinguished from assessments that are in � the nature of a charge for service imposed, for example, in a nuisance abatement or weed 21 35
abatement proceeding. An ordinance imposing an asses does not create a contract between the local agency and the property owners that is subjece to the constinitional proscription against the impairment of contractual obligations. ConsoMMEa dFire Protection District v Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (1998) 63 Cal.AppAth 211 - Section 5 of Article X11ID provides that, with the tMqption of certain "exem f assessmen be ' 1,1997, all "existing, new, or increased" assessments are required to comply with this Article
' assessment is an __ _
_November 6,1996. Gov. Code, § 53753.5(c)(1). Any assessment amp gdV finance_ he_ca�iral casts or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks. streets. sewers, water_ flood control drama a systems or vector control is exempt from the procedures and approval process set fartix in Section 4 of Article XTTM until the assessment is increased. ClfteLexempLassesSr imts-am_ those imposed pursuant to a petition. segued by the persons owning all of the parcels sub ect to
the assessment at the time the assessment was initially imposed until m d for incrrease; an assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness; and any assessment which previously received majority voter approval unt) proposed for increase.
Ivey Changes Proposition 218
Makes to Assessment Law
Proposition 218 affects benefit assessments in four principal ways. • Repeal By 1Wtiative. It subjects assessments to repeal or reduction by initiative. o Pr o-cedural Requhre mens It establishes procedural and other requirements for the levy of assessments, including a requirement for property owner approval by new mail ballot process.
Burden of Proof. It alters the burden of proof in legal actions to contest the validity of an assessment.
Public Property Assessed. It requires the assessment of publicly -owned property within the assessment district.
Proposition 218 makes these changes by adding article X= to the California Constitution.
Proposition 218 does not provide any new authority to local agencies to impose assessments.
With the exception of the statutory notice, protest, and hearing requirements, local agencies must substantially comply with both existing statutes and the new constitutional requirements- Gov.
Code, § 53753-"'
1° Legislation adopted in 2000 (2000 Stats., ch. 262 [S.13.13341) harmonized special assessment acts with Proposition 218. Similar legislation to harmonize statutes authorizing Ievy of standby charges has been introduced during the 2007 legislative session. (Sa 444 [Committee on Local Government].) 22 36
C. Dniv:�ciai. benefits" are assessable. Prior to Proposition 218, only properties receiving special benefit vie assessable, but the fad that some incidental general benefit also resulted from capital improvement or mai.tenance did not invalidate an assessment apportioning some or all of that general benefit to specially benefited properties within the district. Under article MM, costs associated with general benefit must be paid from other resources of the local agency.
D. Notice requirements.
(1) Proposition 218 requires 45 day mailed notice to record owner of each parcel. It eliminates the published notice option established in the Brown Act for assessment districts that are coterminous with local government boundaries or for assessment districts of 50,000 parcels or more. The record owner is the owner of a parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll. Gov. Code, § 53752(]).
(2) Notice of hearings required by the statutory provisions under which the agency is levying the assessment must also be followed_ In some instances this will require combined notices and multiple public hearings.
The vote under Proposition 218 would occur at the last required public hearing.
(3) Contents of notice.
(a) total assessment for entire assessment district;
(b) assessment chargeable on owner's parcel;
(c) duration of proposed assessment;
(d) reason for assessment;
(e) basis on which amount of proposed assessment was calculated; (f) date, time and place of public hearing;
(h) summary of voting procedures and effect of majority protest.
E. Protest by ballot.
(1) Property owners may express their support or opposition to a proposed assessment by ballot that must accompany the notice.
(2) Ballots must be returned before the conclusion of the public hearing. (3) Ballots may be tabulated at the public hearing.
(4) No assessment may be imposed if a majority protest" exists. Proposition 218 overturns ability of legislative body in some assessment district proceedings to override a majority protest by a 4/5ths vote. 24 37
An assessment is "increased" when the ap-encv either increases the rate used— Wculat- rh-e assessment or revises the methodology by which the rate is calculated: which results in an increased amount. See Gov. Code, §153 . The rovisions of the Pm ositinn z18 Omnibus lm lamentation Act that apply to automatic annual increases to taxes, fees, and charges do not apply to assessments. A tax, fee, or charge is not "increased" if (1) it is adjusted in accordance i-va a sEHedule 4 adjustments (inclu ding inEation}, a opted b thea en -prior to November ; or zt �.mp ernents an increase — such as an irzfation ad�nstmen[ - __-_- previously approved by iEe voters See Gov. Code, § 53750 2 A . Note this element of statute only refers to taxes, fees and charges—but not assessments. The Attorney General has opined that even if tore annual increases in an assessment were specified in a previously adopted engineer's report, the requirements of Proposition 218 would be triggered by the annual legislative action of imposing an assessment as distinguished from simply the continued administrative collection of an existing assessment. (The assessment construed by the Attorney General was imposed pursuant to the Uniform Standby Charge Procedures Act, Gov. Code, §§ 54984 et seq., which requires annual action by an agency's legislative body). 82 Ops.CalAity.Gen. 35 (1998).
The Cortese -Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 provides for the establishment of a local agency formation commission (" I.AFCO") in each county to encourage orderly growth and development and the assessment of local community service needs- The primary function of a LAFCO is "m review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or reorganization" of local agencies - Gov. Code, § 56373. In order to assure the fiscal feasibility of an annexation, a LAFCO may condition approval of a change of organization upon a requirement that the subject agency levy and collect a previously established and collected tax, benefit assessment or property -related fee or charge on parcels to be annexed to the agency.
The Attorney General has concluded that the voter and landowner approval requirements set forth in Proposition 218 do not apply to such taxes, assessments, fees or charges if imposed in pre- existing amounts. 82 Ops.CaLAtty.Gen.180 (1999)- The Attorney General's conclusion is based upon the language of the Act that provides that any territory annexed to a city shall be subject to any previously authorized taxes, assessments, and fees or charges, Cal. § 57330; the power of LAFCO to modify this general rule, Gov. Code, § 56844; and the Act's own voter approval process that allows registered voters to reject: an annexation, Gov. Code, §§ 50775- 50780. Those who would become subject to the established taxes, assessments, fees, and charges upon the change of organization have the opportunity to reject the imposition of the previously approved taxes, assessments, fees, and charges by rejecting the annexation proposal.
Finally, the Attorney General concludes that as a practical matter it would be virtually impossible to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 in the context of a change of organization. The timing of the elections and the differing constituencies who would be voting on different measures with differing voter approval requirements "would present an administrative imbroglio_"
30 38 {�
0 �� '51 0 1 q 9
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements shall ude the following within the limits of the District:
A. Maintenance of all street lights in the public right- of-way.
B. Hilborn Road,Lyon Road, and Martin Road - Maintenance of all landscaping in the median islands and in the
parkway strips between the curb and public right-of-way on both sides of the road, including water.
C. Maintenance of all lands owned by the City of Fairfield designated as open space, including perimeter fencing.
D. Solan yoothills Drive and sanctuary Drive Stripa
Maintenance of all landscaping in the parkway
between the curb and public right -oz -way on both sides of the road, excluding landscaping fronting residential lots that is to be maintained by the property owner,
including water.
S. X& ntenance of the "neighborhood park" in the Meadow Glen subdivision., including water and all equipment_
F. Maintenance of "back up" fencing on collector and
arterial class streets.
G. Maintenance of the detention basin, including water.
H_ any other necessary maintenance to sustain the
integrity of the landscape and lighting improvements
within the District.
39 V
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7
ROLLING HILLS
Description of Work
The fiollowing.is a brief description of the improvements to be maintained:
1. Maintenance of all street lights in the public right-of-way.
2. HILBORN ROAD, LYON ROAD, AND MARTIN ROAD: Maintenance- of all landscaping in the median islands and in the parkway strips between the curb and public right-of-way on both sides of the road.
3. RESIDENTIAL STREETS: Maintenance of all landscaping between the curb and sidewalk on all residential streets in the Rolling Hills Development
4. Maintenance of fire breaks for all lands owned by the City of Fairfield designated as open space.
5_ Any other necessary maintenance to sustain the integrity of the landscape and fighting improvements within the District.
40 J,�))-7-1T
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
ROLLING HILLS
Description of Work
The maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements shall include the following within the limits of the District:
1. Maintenance of all street lights in the public right-of-way.
Z. HILBORN ROAD, LYON ROAD & MARTIN ROAD: Maintenance of all landscaping in the median islands and in the parkway strips between the curb and public right-of- way on both sides of the road.
3. RESIDENTAL STREETS: Maintenance of all landscaping between the curb and sidevialk on all residential streets in the Rolling Hills Development.
4. Maintenance of all lands owned by the City of Fairfield designated as open space, including lands adjacent to Solano Foothills Drive and Sanctuary Drive as well as the maintenance access road going from Creekside Court to Sanctuary Circle.
5. Any other necessary maintenance to sustain the integrity of the landscape and lighting improvements within the District.
41 EXHIBIT A►
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
ROLLING HILLS
Description of Work
The maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements shall include the following within the limits of the District
1. Maintenance of all street lights in the public right-of-way.
2. HILBORN ROAD, LYON ROAD & MARTIN ROAD: Maintenance of all landscaping in the median islands and in the parkway strips between the curb and public right-of- way on both sides of the road.
3. RESIDENTAL STREETS: Maintenance of all landscaping between the curb and sidevialk on all residential streets in the Rolling Hills Development.
4. Maintenance of all lands owned by the City of Fairfield designated as open space, including lands adjacent to Solano Foothills Drive and Sanctuary Drive as well as the maintenance access road going from Creekside Court to Sanctuary Circle.
5. Any other necessary maintenance to sustain the integrity of the landscape and lighting improvements within the District.
42 On October 19, 2021, staff solicited proposals for three separate contracts with reduced scopes of work for Rolling Hills, Paradise Valley, and North Cordelia individually and for a combined contract for Waterman, Peppertree, and Kolob with no substantial changes to the scope of work. The service reductions for Rolling Hills, Paradise Valley, and North Cordelia were determined based on three priority levels. Priority level 1 was defined as essential work to safeguard public safety, such as clearing walkways, lines -of -sight, and potential fire hazards. Priority level 2 is characterized as work intended to preserve the health and quality of the existing landscape to minimize any potential costs to restore the landscape in future years. Finally, priority level 3 encompasses all other worts and non- essential services. Due to the required budget reductions, the proposed scopes ci :°rark are limited primarily to priority level 1 and 2 services.
Below is a brief description of the budget and proposed scope of work for each district (sea Attachment No. 1 for a detailed listing of service reductions):
Rolling Hills
The maximum assessment rates for the Rolling Hills district are $250 for the Serpas Ranch development and $300 for the Rolling Hills development_ These rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s and do not include an automatic inflator. The district currently receives approximately $330,000 in assessment revenue and General Fund contributions per year_ In FY 2020- 2021, the district's expenses were over_$580,000,-causing a $250,000 cash deficit -covered by the district's fund balance. The majority of these expenses were for landscape maintenance and water services/consumption at $330,000 and $130,000, respectively. For the district to maintain a balanced budget, avoid any future deficits, and begin establishing a reserve for unexpected repairs, the annual budget for landscape maintenance and water services/consumption must be reduced to below $90,000 and $120,000, respectively.
The proposed scope of work for Rolling Hills includes basic lawn mowing, annual shrub and ground cover pruning, high weed mowing, v -ditch and drain cleaning, and leaf, litter, and trash removal. The total yearly cost for these services is $81,312 for the initial term beginning January 1, 2022, and ending on December 31, 2023. Irrigation maintenance and repair may be provided for an additional cost New Image was selected as the most qualified provider for this agreement- Paradise
greement
Para ise Valtey
The maximum assessment rate for the Paradise Valley district is $195 per parcel. This rate has remained unchanged since 1995 and does not include an automatic inflator_ The district currently receives approximately $270,000 in assessment revenue and General Fund contributions per year. In FY 2020-2021, the districts expenses exceeded revenues by approximately $18,000. The majority of these expenses were for landscaping maintenance and water serviceslconsumption at $155,000 and $65,000, respectively. For the district to maintain a balanced budget, avoid any future deficits, and begin establishing a reserve for unexpected repairs, the annual landscape maintenance budget must be reduced to approximately $90,000.
The proposed scope of work for Paradise Valley includes basic lawn mowing and edging, annual shrub and ground cover pruning and mowing, basic irrigation sprinkler emitter repairs, high weed mowing, v -ditch, and drain cleaning, and leaf, litter, and trash removal. New image was selected as the most qualified provider for this agreement. The total annual cost for these services is $89,952 for the initial term beginning January 1, 2022, and ending on December 31, 2023.
North Cordelia
The maximum assessment rates for the North Cordelia district were established for each new development between 1996 and 2015 and range from $170 to $850 per parcel. The Hidden Meadows, Village Oaks, and Jayo subdivisions are the only developments that include an automatic inflator. The district currently receives approximately $630,000 in assessment revenue and General Fund contributions per year. In FY 2020-2021, the district's expenses exceeded revenues by approximately S42,000. The majority of these expenses were For landscaping maintenance. water services/consumption, and utilities at $340,000, $1011,000, and $43,000, respectively. For the district to maintain a balanced budget, avoid any future deficits, and begin establishing a reserve for unexpected repairs, the annual landscape maintenance budget must be reduced to approximately $315,000.
The proposed scope of work for North Cordelia includes lawn mowing, edging, and weed control, annual shrub and ground cover pruning, mowing, and pestldisease control, basic irrigation sprinkler emitter repairs, high weed mowing, v -ditch and drain cleaning, leaf, litter, and trash removal, and pond maintenance. New Image was selected as the most qualified provider for this agreement. The total annual cost for these services is $313,804 for the initial term beginning January 1, 2022, and ending on December 31, 2023.
Waterman. Peppertree. and Kolob
No significant changes were made to the scope of work for the Waterman, Peppertree, and Kolob districts. Dominguez was selected as the most qualified provider for this agreement. The total annual cost for these services is $75,258 for the initial term beginning January 1, 2022, and ending on December 31, 2023.
Dominguez and New Image have been longstanding landscape service providers for the City and have demonstrated competence and professional qualifications to perform the services required. In accordance with Chapter 28.31 of the Fairfield Municipal Code for the procurement of landscape maintenance services, the staff is recommending approval for three individual service agreements with New Image for landscape maintenance services in Rolling Hills, Paradise Valley, and North Cordelia, and one service agreement with Dominguez for combined landscape maintenance services in Waterman, Peppertree, and Kolob. Each agreement will have the option to extend for up to two additional terms of up to 24 months, each term including a negotiated compensation adjustment not -to -exceed the June San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Eamers and Clerical Workers (not seasonally adjusted for all items) upon mutual written agreement of both parties.
Upon approval of the Paradise Valley service agreement ana3combined Waterman/Peppertree/Kolob service agreement, a formal
44 Fund Overview
There are four districts formed under the Community Facilities District (CFD) Act of 1982 (Mello -Roos Act) to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space: CFD #1 (Rancho Solano-Rolling. Hills -Paradise Valley); CFD#2 (North Cordelia) and a companion open space district in unincorporated Green Valley; CFD #4A and CFD #2004 (residences with development approvals in 2004 and thereafter). Revenues come from annual taxes per affected residence. CFDs #1 and #2 have agreements to pass through revenues to the Solano Land Trust CFDs #4A and 2004 generate funds for the park naturalist program and maintenance of Rockville Hills Park and City -held open space.
■ Acquire and maintain open space surrounding the City in accordance with General Plan policies.
Facilitate land trust actions to acquire land in North Cordelia area to utilize resources building up in CFD#2. For example, in late 10/11, Solano Land Trust used $2.5 million of CFD#2 funds to acquire Rockville Trails Estates for open space preservation.
• New developments will create a steady growth in the revenues.
C The revenue budget includes monies received annually from Rockville Hills Park admission fees.
Q Any fiscal year deficit is sustained by available cash in the fund balance.
Slower development would limit revenue growth for CFD#4A and CFD#2004 in particular, adversely affecting funding for park naturalist and open space maintenance.
A Federal and State Regulatory changes can affect operation expenses. e Increased public usage will impact current staff levels and maintenance operations. 4s
City of Fairfield, CA FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 Budget Page 200
1 F IE -*E- 1 INEi r - ■ EFW— F -.0 mon-ohm - ■ -.0 f mmmmm -0--0 Ff 0 ■ _ - f - ■ _
f` -�ni ■yam ■NONE -001■-:-M0 imommom -fimommomff ■-
— 'L Emommos rmoormog o.- ■ I*- IL- -.:jp = -, --L. tM - -M-11 imommom
�� ■ ■� -:�nm Lei
■ 414`i■mommi-EmoolHi --
��
11111111-110 ■ 1 — - M I— - - &-■1immom — - H
INS -.M -_ iF -011---10 - 0 INS♦F —Illit-
F F INS - Not
5. The amount of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 394-95 per parcel is as follows:
$198.14 per parcel for single-family parcels in the
Rolling Hills Development
$0.00 per parcel for single-family parcels in the newly annexed Serpas Ranch Development
APN - 156-320-010 - $6,559.56
APN - 156-354-020 - $ 825.19
APN - 156-354-030 - $ 587.42
APN - 156-354-040 - $ 466.21
6. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned
ineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and ailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the d to be annexed to the District and the proposed assessments a assessable lots and parcels of land therein. Within such 3s to be annexed any public property owned by any public acy and in use in the performance of a public function shall be assessed.
"ft` 7. This Council hereby orders that two public hearings shall be held before this Council in the regular meeting place t1tereof at the City Council Chambers, 1000 Webster Street, F irfield, California as follows:
a. The first hearing shall be held on June 7, 1994,
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed annexation and the levy of the p oposed assessments; provided, however, that at said first hearing, no action shall be taken to annex or to levy the p oposed assessment; and
b. The second hearing shall be held on June 21, 1994,
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of this Council's determination whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity require that the proposed annexation and levy be made, d this Council's final action upon the Engineer's Report and t e assessment therein.
At the hearing, any interested person may protest the
proposed annexation or assessment. in addition, prior to the conclusion of the second hearing any interested person may file a. -'tten protest with the City Clerk, 1000 Webster Street, 47 48
$151.26 per parcel for single- family parcels in the
Meadow Glen_ subdivision
APN - 156-320-010 - $496.29
APN - 156-354-020 - $817_23
APN - 156-354-030 $581.76
APN - 156-354-040 - $461.71
5. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned
Engineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the iniprovements, the boundaries of the Maintenance Assessment District, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within said district.
Within said district, any public property owned by any public agency and in use in the performance of a public function shall be assessed_
6. chis Council hereby orders that two public hearings
shall be held before this Council in the regular meeting place thereof at the City Council 02amhers, 1000 -Webster Street, Fairfield, California as fOIL ws --
a. The first hearing shall be held on June 6, 1995,
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of allowing public testimony regarding the levy of the proposed assessments; provided, however, that at said first hearing, no action shall be taken to levy the proposed assessment; and
b. The second hearing shall be held on June 20, 1995,
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. for the purposes of this Council's determination whether the public interest, convenience,'and necessity require that the proposed levy be made, and this Council's final action upon the Engineer's Report and the assessment therein -
.At the hearing, any interested person may protest the
proposed assessment. In addition, prior to the conclusion of the second hearing any interested person may file a written protest with the City Clerk, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California, 94533-4883, or, having previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection. A protest by a property owner 49 50
AiL
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.98-15
E
A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMMARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT,
DECLARING INTENTION TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARINGS THEREOF MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
ROLLING HILLS
-�
r.
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fairfield, County of Solano, State of California, that
1. On June 4, 1991, this City Council adopted Resolution No: 91-136, A Continuing Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District Pursuant to said resolution, the Engineer designated therein prepared a report in accordance with Section 22565 et seq_ of the California Streets and Highways Code for the Rolling Hills Maintenance Assessment District (the "District"). Said report has been made, filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by this City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminary approval granted.
Said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the foregoing resolution.
2. It is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within the Rolling Hills Maintenance Assessment District for the fiscal year 1958-1999.
Within said District, the existing and - proposed improvements and any substantial changes proposed to be made to the existing improvements are generally as described on Exhibit A attached. hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
3. Said District consists of the lots and parcels shown on the boundary map of the District on file with the City Clerk in the City of Fairfield.
4. The amount of the proposed assessment for fiscal year 1998-1999 is as follows: Rolling Hills Zone - $282.35 per lot; Semas Ranch Zane - $179.97 per lot:
APN 0156-320-010 - $10,000.00; APN 0156-354-020 - $1,250.00; APN 0156-354-030 - $885.00; APN 0156-354-040 - $700.00_ The assessments for fiscal year 1997-1998 were as foilows: Rolling Hills Zone -$236.91; Ser -pas Ranch Zone - $93.97; APN 0156-320-010 - $5,897.76; APN 0156-354020 - $741.94; APN 0156-354-030 - $528.16; APN 0156-354-040 - $419.17. The amount of the proposed assessments per parcel do not exceed the adopted ranges for this district (Rolling Hills, $200 _ $300; Serpas Ranch $150 - $250)
51 52
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
Draft Engineer's Report For:
Downtown Landscaping and Lighting
Maintenance District
October 2020
Prepari?d by:
4'•=• •TNBS
fund tomorrow
nbWv.com
53 Corporate Headquayter5
32605 Temecula Parkway, Stike 100
T pm e-cuta, ,;A 92592
Tollffr—e: 840.676.7316
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION..................................................... .........1
1.1 District History ....................................................................,....,..,.,..............
1.2 Legislative Context .........................................
1.3 Court Rulings.......................................................
2. IMPROVEMENTS.................................................................
2.1 Street Lighting .................................................. .............................4
2.2 Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance.......................................................4
2.3 Park Maintenance.....................................................................................................5
3. BENEFITS........................................................................... ........
3.1 Street Lighting- Improved Safety and Accessibility ................. 6 ..........................
3.2 Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance - Improved Aesthetics and Increased Economic Activity ............................................... .........6
3.3 Park Maintenance -Improved Desirability and Increased Economic Opportunity .7
4. SPECIAL BENEFIT DISTRIBUTION......................................................................................8
4.1 Parcel Characteristics......................................................... _..................................... 8 re4.2 Land Use Types..........................................................................................................8
4.3 Total Special Benefit Points ................................................ ...11
5. SEPARATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF GENERAL BENEFITS.........................................12
5.1 Summary ...........................•---•--..............................
5.2 General Benefit Analysis........................................................._......._............._..._.....12
6. BUDGET ......................................... ............ ......... ,.................... ................ ................... 17
6.1 Maximum Balance to Be Assessed ........................ :................................................. 17
6.2 Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point ................... ..18
6.3 Actual Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point.................18
6.4 Annual Maximum Assessment Rate Increases........................................................18
6.5 Future Changes to Parcel Characteristics..................................................... ..19
6.6 Data for Annual Assessment Calculations...............................................................19
6.7 Appeals....................................................................................................................19
6.8 Method of Collection..............................................................................................20
7. ENGINEER'S STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 21 1424N 8. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM................................................................................................ 22
9. ASSESSMENT ROLL....................................................................................................... 23
10. REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 24 54 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 District History
The City of Sierra Madre ("City") desires to fund certain landscaping and lighting services (the "Improvements") as described in Section 2 of this Report through an assessment. The proposed assessment is subject to the substantive and procedural requirements described in Section 4, Article All D of the California Constitution ("Article XIII D"). The assessment is authorized pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act").
The City currently has four existing special assessment districts, which fund various services and improvements including parking, lighting, landscaping, and associated maintenance within the City's downtown business district. Rather than continuing to levy and collect the existing assessments, the City hopes to provide several of these services through the formation of a new City of Sierra Madre Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District ("District") moving forward.
1.2 Legislative Context
Determinations of special and general benefits must comply with the requirements of Article XIII D and the Act. The following is a description of the legislative context within which this report is written.
In 1996, California Voters adopted Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act!' which added Articles XIII C and Xlll D to the California Constitution. Article XIII D imposes certain substantive and procedural Aq N . requirements ori any agency that wishes to levy special assessments.
The substantive requirements are twofold: (1) assessments can only be imposed for a "special benefit" conferred on an assessed parcel, and (2) assessments must be in proportion to, and no greater than, the special benefit conferred on an assessed parcel.
The special benefit and proportionality requirements are described in Section 4, Subdivision (a) of Article XIII D: "An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shag be determined in relobonship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement; or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel..."
In addition to its substantive requirements, Article X111 D imposes certain procedural requirements, which include preparing an engineer's report, providing written notice to property owners, providing assessment protest ballots to property owners, holding a public hearing, and tabulating the assessment protest ballots.
1.3 Court Rulings
Since the initial passage of Proposition 218, several court rulings have helped provide context and direction /OMN on the practical implementation procedures and requirements for levying assessments. Several of the key concepts from these rulings are summarized below.
City of sierra Madre
O N BS Draft Engineers Report — Downtown Landscagqng and Lighting Maintenance District (october 2020)
1.3.1 GENERAL BENEFIT
Article XIII D requires an agency to separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred because only special benefits are assessable.
The Court of Appeal in Golden Hills Neighborhood Assn., Inc v. Gty of San Diego (2011) ("Golden Hills") clarified this concept by stating, "Separation and quantification of general and spedal benefits mustbe accomplished by apportioning the cost of a service or improvoement between the two and assessing Property owners only for the portion of the cost representing special benefits." The Court of Appeal in Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) ("Beutz") quoted from the Legislative Analyst's Office pamphlet titled "Understanding Proposition 218" which states an agency must, "estimate the amount of spedal benefit landowners would receive from the project or service, as well as the amount of 'general benefit.' This step is needed because Proposition 218 allows local government to recoup from assessments only the proportionate share of cost to provide the special benefit." The Court in Beutz furthered this idea stating, "Separating the general from the special benefits of a public improvement project and estimating the quantity of each in relation to the other is essential if an assessment is to be limited to the special benefits."
1.3.2 BENEFIT -BASED NOT COST -BASED
In Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (2009) ("Tiburon'), the Court of Appeal clarified the idea that assessments must be apportioned based upon benefit rather than cost. The Court stated, "Proportionate spedal benefit is the basis upon which a project's total assessable costs are apportioned among parcels within an assessment district."
The assessment on a particular property cannot be based on the relative cost of the improvements, but rather the special benefit conferred on such property. The Court in Tiburan also stated, "an assessment represents the entirety of the cost of the improvement or property -related service, less any amount attributable to general benefits (which may not be assessed), allocated to individual properties in proportion to the relative special benefit conferred on the property."
1.3.3 PUBLIC PROPERTY
Section 4, Subdivision (a) of Article XIII D states, in part, "Parcels: within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by dear and convincing evidence that those publidy owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit" Historically, there had been differing opinions about whether this requirement that publicly owned property should not be exempt actually meant those properties must be assessed.
The Court of Appeal in Manteca Unified School District v. Reclamation District No. 17 et at (2017) ("Manteca") clarified this issue by stating, "section 4, subdivision (a) of article X111 D of the California Constitution unambiguously conditions any continuing benefit assessment exemption on a showing by dear and convincing evidence of no special benefit."
�� A 1 [7 Bt+ S City of Sierra Madre
! Y Engineer's Report— Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
1.3.4 IMPRECISION
The Court in Tiburon acknowledged the difficulty of trying to precisely assign and measure special benefit, stating, "Any attempt to classify special benefits conferred on particular properties and to assign relative weights to those benefits will necessarily involve some degree of imprecision." The Court in Tiburon went on to say that a formula assigning equal weight to different special benefits "may be a legallyjustifioble approach to measuring and apportioning special benefits, [but] it is not necessarily the only valid approach. Whichever approach is taken to measuring and apportioning special benefits, however, it must be both defensible and consistently applied." 1 ��+ City of Sierra Madre
43 i r7 Draft Engineers Report — Downtown Landscaq"and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
2. IMPROVEMENTS
The City wishes to fund the following services and maintenance activities:
Street Lighting
Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance
Park Maintenance
The services and maintenance activities listed above are collectively referred to as the "Improvements." A diagram detailing the proposed area in which the Improvements will be provided can be found below:
J
J
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
if i `-�`-�- --
[L' :oq J= ------ T-7
f. ! it - -f f
77 Li
- J Lin Ml
C7t
I+
Yt
2.1 Street Lighting
The City wishes to fund the ongoing maintenance of street lighting throughout the downtown area of the City, as identified in the highlighted portion of the above diagram- This would include, but is not limited to, general maintenance of street lighting fixtures along roadways, lights around bow -outs, crosswalk lights, and funding of associated utility costs.
2.2 Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance
The City wishes to fund ongoing maintenance of street landscaping, including, but not limited to, tree trimming, irrigation, watering, and other associated landscape maintenance throughout the downtown area of the City, as identified in the highlighted portion of the above diagram. Further, the City will provide p E City of Sierra Madre
V Draft Engineers Report — Downtown Landsca_ng and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
ongoing maintenance services including but not limited to trash removal, landscape maintenance, and .•, other associated maintenance to the area known as Kersting Court Triangle.
2.3 Park Maintenance
According to the City's General Plan, Memorial Park is considered an important center within the City.
Memorial Park contains a recreational center with a bandstand, a play area for children, tennis courts and picnic tables. It is also the location for the Sierra Madre Senior Citizens Center housed in a multi-purpose structure on the park site. Concerts, festivals, and holiday activities for children in the community are among the numerous activities that take place in Memorial Park.
The City wishes to fund the ongoing maintenance of the Memorial Park near the downtown area of the City which includes, but is not limited to, landscape maintenance, irrigation, watering, trash removal, and other associated maintenance within the park area.
y� City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineers Report — Downtown Lan"g and Lighting Maintenance D'Wct (October 2020)
3. BENEFITS
The Improvements will confer special benefits upon certain parcels within the District. These benefits are summarized in the table below:
Improvement
Street Lighting
Improved Safety
Improved Accessibility
Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance
Improved Aesthetics
Increased Economic Activity
Park Maintenance
Improved Desirability
Increased Economic Opportunity
The special benefits to be conferred by the Improvements are detailed below.
3.1 Street Lighting — Improved Safety and Accessibility The street lighting improvements will confer safety benefits to parcels in close proximity to lighting. This benefit extends to property, as adequate lighting should decrease vandalism and other property -related crime. As noted in one report, "Published studies having different methodologies tend to converge on an overall average reported 20% to 30% reduction in night time crash risk from lighting" (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, 2009). The same report also states,.".- lighting has a positive effect on reducing crime.-." Therefore, the street lighting improvements will confer safety benefits.
The street lighting improvements will also provide improved accessibility benefits to certain parcels where the access route requires the use of street lighting. The usefulness of a parcel cannot be realized unless it is accessible. Thus, improving the accessibility of a parcel through proper street lighting can improve its utilization. The Improvements will help improve access for emergency response vehicles as well. The efficient and timely response to emergencies is a critical component to the effectiveness of emergency response. It is reasonable to conclude that improving street lighting will improve emergency response efficiency. Therefore, the street lighting improvements will confer accessibility benefits.
3.2 Street Tree and Other Landscape Maintenance — Improved Aesthetics and Increased Economic Activity
The street trees and other landscaping activities will confer aesthetic benefits. Specifically, the street trees are believed to create a more beautiful, aesthetically pleasing environment within the District A study by the University of George found "People's preferences for locating areas of social interactions in calming, beautiful, and nature -dominated areas revolve around the presence of community trees and forests" (Coder, 1996). The same study noted "Large old street trees were found to be the most important indicator of attractiveness in a community" (Coder). Therefore, the street tree improvements will confer aesthetic benefits to properties in close proximity.
City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineer's Report—Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020) 60 The landscaping improvements that confer aesthetic benefits will concurrently confer economic activity rm%� benefits to certain parcels, as well. The Improvements will create a well-maintained and dean environment that is aesthetically -pleasing, which has been shown to `increase consumers intentions to spend money" (VIInai-Yavetz 2010). Therefore, the Improvements will also confer economic activity benefits.
3.3 Park Maintenance — Improved Desirability and Increased Economic Opportunity
The park improvements will confer desirability benefits upon all parcels within the District The park improvements are designed to create recreational opportunities for the City's residents. These opportunities make properties in the area more desirable. A study by the California Department of Parks and Recreation found that "Parks and recreational facilities also help improve a community's image, sodoeconomk status and enhances the area's desirability" (2005). In addition, the presence of natural areas and green landscapes are positively related to neighborhood satisfaction (Kearney, 2006). Therefore, the park improvements will confer desirability benefits.
The park improvements will confer economic opportunity benefits upon certain parcels within the District as well. The recreational opportunities created by the park improvements should help create additional opportunities for certain types of commercial parcels as recreational users and event attendees stay in the area to shop or dine after visiting Memorial Park. As noted by Crompton, "Organized events held in public parks.- often bring substantial positive economic impacts to their communities, filling hotel rooms and restaurants and bringing customers to local stores" (2001). Therefore, the park improvements will confer ldm-� economic opportunity benefits.
Gma
ti 1 N BS CityE Sierra Madre
i Draft Engineer's Report — Downtown Landsc?ing and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
4. SPECIAL BENEFIT DISTRIBUTION
Once special benefits are identified, they must be assigned based on the estimated proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel. This section describes the assignment of special benefit to each parcel.
4.1 Parcel Characteristics
The following parcel characteristics are used to determine each parcel's proportionate special benefit:
Building square footage
Linear street frontage
It is believed parcels of the same use will experience different degrees of special benefit in relation to differences in their building size and linear street frontage. For example, a parcel with a large building will experience greater special benefit than a parcel with a small building. Accordingly, as building size and linear street frontage increase, parcels are considered to receive proportionately greater special benefit.
Therefore, these parcel characteristics are deemed appropriate factors for determining proportional special benefit
In order to relate differing parcel characteristics to one another, a relative factor is determined for each.
4.1.1 BUILDING FACTOR
The average building size in the District is approximately 3,480 square feet Each parcel's actual building size was divided by the District's average building size to determine a Building Factor.
Parcel's District's
BuildingAverage _ Parcel's
Square Feet Building Square Feet Building Factor
(3.480)
4.1.2 FRONTAGE FACTOR
The average linear street frontage in the District is approximately 85 linear feet Each parcel's actual linear street frontage was divided by the District's average linear street frontage to determine a Frontage Factor.
Parcel's
Frontage Linear
Feet
4.2 Land Use Types
District's
/Average
Frontage Linear Feet
(85)
Parcel's
Frontage Factor
In addition to building size and linear street frontage, a parcel's land use type will also affect the special benefits received. Following the calculation of each parcel characteristic factor, Land Use Benefit Points were assigned. These benefit points correspond to the special benefits described in the Benefits section of this report.
OBS City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineer's Report — Downtown Landsc Wft and lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
Each parcel within the proposed District boundary is assigned a land use type for purposes of determining oomm�' the special benefits received. Below is a description of the land use type categories to be assessed within the District.
Apartment Property consists of parcels that are duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartment buildings used exclusively for residential rental purposes.
Commercial Property consists of parcels used for a commercial or for --profit purposes including, but not limited to, retail, offices, restaurants, commercial garages, private schools, hotels/motels, medical/dental offices, and privately -owned pay -to -use parking lots and structures.
Condominium property consists of parcels that are duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and condominiums used exclusively for residential purposes.
industrial Property consists of parcels designed for industrial purposes to manufacture, store, or distribute goods.
Public/Non-Profit Property consists of the following:
parcels used for public purposes including, police and fire stations, public schools, libraries, and other government administration offices
parcels used to provide public utility
parcels used for non-profit purposes
Single -Family Residential Property consists of parcels that have stand-alone residential dwelling units ;,nk" with their own lots intended for one family.
Park Property consists of certain park parcels that are not assessable, as they themselves are the improvements whose maintenance is funded by the District assessment. This is limited to APNs 5767- 018-900, 5768-020-902, 576&420-907, and 5768-020-908, or their successor parcels, representing Kersting Court Triangle and Memorial Park.
As described below, some special benefits are conferred upon all land use types, and others are conferred only upon certain land use types.
4.2.1 APPORTIONING AESTHETIC BENEFIT
The Aesthetic Benefits conferred by the improvements will be enjoyed by all assessable land use types. The benefit of visual appeal is not restricted to a particular land use. A more attractive public environment can be enjoyed by all parcels irrespective of land use type. Accordingly, each assessable land use type will be assigned one Aesthetic Benefit Point
As a property -related benefit, improved aesthetics from tree and landscaping improvements can be measured by the characteristics of a parcel, namely the presence of a building, its size, and street frontage.
Larger parols and parcels with larger developments have a greater intensity of use and will experience the Aesthetic Benefits to a greater degree than smaller, less-developed parcels. Therefore, the Building Factor and Frontage Factor are used to measure Aesthetic Benefits. p� �City of sierra Madre
1 V S Draft Engineees Report — Dowtrtown lands Ping and tightf Mairrteraace District (October 2x120)
4.2.2 APPORTIONING SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY BENEFIT
tooftN The Safety and Accessibility Benefits conferred by the Improvements will be enjoyed by all assessable land use types. Safety can be thought of as a universal need. Its importance can be seen in the fact that everyone desires to live and work in safe, crime -free areas (Lau Leby 2010). Therefore, because levels of safety affect all land uses, it follows that an increase in safety will benefit all land use types. Accordingly, each assessable land use type will be assigned one Safety Benefit Point.
As noted in Section 3.1, the usefulness of a parcel cannot be realized unless it is accessible. As the street lighting improvements allow for increased visibility around assessed parcels and, for the most part, easier access to properties throughout the District, these benefits are also not restricted to a particular land use.
Accordingly, each assessable land use type will be assigned one Accessibility Benefit Point As property -related benefits, improved safety and accessibility from street lighting can be measured by the characteristics of a parcel, namely the presence of a building, its size, and street frontage. Larger parcels and parcels with larger developments will experience the Safety and Accessibility Benefits to a greater degree than smaller, less-developed parcels. Therefore, the Building Factor and Frontage Factor are used to measure Safety and Accessibility Benefits.
4.2.3 APPORTIONING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BENEFIT
Condominium Property and Single -Family Residential Property are generally not concerned with attracting customers and tenants, as its land -use status is that of an individual, private owner for each residential dwelling unit Therefore, Condominium Property and Single -Family Residential Property are assigned zero r,,,*I\ Economic Activity Benefit Points.
This is in contrast to Apartment Property, which is concerned with attracting and retaining tenants. In this way, Apartment Property receives economic benefits from the Improvements. Thus, Apartment Property will receive one Economic Activity Benefit Point
Commercial Property also receives economic benefits from the Improvements. As noted earlier, the Improvements will create a more aesthetically pleasing environment, which has been shown to "increase consumers intentions to spend money" (vinai-Yavetz 2010). Thus, Commercial Property concerned with customer attraction will receive one Economic Activity Benefit Point Neither Industrial Property nor Public,/Non-Profit property are concerned with customers or tenants in the same manner as Commercial Property or Apartment Property. Therefore, Industrial Property and Public/Non-Profit Property will be assigned zero Economic Activity Benefit Points.
4.2.4 APPORTIONING DESIRABiUTY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BENEFITS The park improvements will confer desirability benefits upon all parcels within the District The park improvements are designed to create recreational opportunities for the City's residents. Therefore, the Desirability Benefits conferred by the park improvements will be enjoyed by all assessable land use types.
The Economic Opportunity Benefits created by the park improvements are assigned to those land use types viewed as benefitting from the attraction of park and event attendees and the related spillover of 14=4\ shopping or dining that might be associated with them. Accordingly, the Economic Opportunity Benefits are only assigned to Commercial land uses providing retail, dining, or entertainment services.
City of.Sierra Madre
Draft Engineers Report— Downtown LandsVng and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
4.2.5 LAND USE BENEFIT POINTS
The table below summaries the Land Use Benefit Points assigned to the various assessable land use types within the District:
Land Use Type
Street
Safety
_
Li.-hting
Accessibility
Street Trees
Landscape
Aesthetic
and Other Park Maintenance
Economic Economic
Desirability
Activity Opportunity
Total
Land Use
Benefit
Points
00M.T.7V STIM0000®v
Residentialoo©�©■i■■■a
4.3 Total Special Benefit Points
The calculation of Total Special Benefit Points for each parcel takes into account each component analyzed and described above, parcel characteristics and land use. The formula for determining each parcel's Total Benefit Points is as follows:
Building Frontage Land Use Benefit _ Total Special
Factor + Factor X Points Benefit Points
The Total Special Benefit Points are computed for each parcel in the District and summed. The Total District Special Benefit Points are 1,971.48. These Total District Special Benefit Points are used to determine the proposed assessment amounts on each parcel.
City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineer's Report — Downtown LandscagP9 and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
S. SEPARATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF GENERAL
BENEFITS
As described in the Introduction, only special benefits are assessable and in order to assess only special benefits, the general benefits resulting from the Improvements must be separated and quantified. This section describes the process used to separate and quantify the general benefits.
5.1 Summary
As detailed below, it is estimated the Improvements will confer an Effective General Benefit of 23.85%.
5.2 General Benefit Analysis
5.2.1 GENERAL BENEFIT: MEMORIAL PARK DESIRABILITY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
BENEFITS
The primary reason persons living in close proximity to the District would enter the District would be to access the commercial or entertainment properties therein. Of these properties focused on providing community entertainment, Memorial Park is considered a key community center within the City.
While the park improvements are a benefit to the properties within the District, there are Park Desirability and Economic Opportunity Benefits believed to be conferred to those properties within the respective service area of Memorial Park. As such, we must recognize the benefit received by those properties located outside of the District, but within the proximity of the respective service area, that receive benefit from the opportunity to visit and use Memorial Park regularly.
To determine an appropriate service area for Memorial Park, we rely on information related to the distance that people will walk to a destination. The commonly accepted distance people will walk for public transportation, goods and services is one-quarter mile (Walkscore, 2014). In order to identify the parcels benefiting from the ongoing maintenance of Memorial Park, GIS data was used to approximate a one- quarter mile buffer around Memorial Park equal to the estimated service area. Accordingly, all properties within this one-quarter mile service area of Memorial Park were reviewed to determine their estimated benefit received from the park improvements. The applicable parcel characteristics were assigned to all parcels within this service area and relative factors were determined for each characteristic in relation to the full parcel list within the service area. The table below summarizes the benefit points related to Park Desirability and Economic Benefits for property within the District and property located outside of the District but within the service area.
�1 City of Sierra Madre
# Draft Engineer's Report— Downtown Landsciing and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
CW -0
F--=02
As a result of the ongoing maintenance of Memorial Park, 33.06% of the Park Desirability and Economic Benefits are attributable to property located within the District and 66.94% Park Desirability and Economic Benefits are attributable to property located outside of the District.
5.2.2 GENERAL BENEFIT: VEHICLES PASSING THROUGH THE DISTRICT As a result of the Improvements, there will be a level of general benefit conferred to pass-through vehicle traffic related to properties outside of the District whose occupants do not intend to access property within the District. As such, the benefit derived by pass-through vehicle traffic needs to be quantified. In order to do this, we must first estimate the average daily vehicle trips through the District. Chapter 3 of the City's General Plan contains a map, prepared by Fehr and Peers, showing the average daily traffic flow through the District along Sierra Madre Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue:
i
... ��. F{UflfQl�lA�! •r Z � _ ' � i4 �![lir
I
RL�1YM ■�,^s ._._. .. -. ... - � 2•iao.lie.e.a,
i. �usnruru �+x
sor GQ.e PQ -, �.-...n . v
O'W'W .�---�• - • ..__ _- --- ^-'nrxi�s:ond�...._ .. �,N:
Nusva Ytlr
Sane its ?gym 7LII
This figure shows that the traffic along Sierra Madre Boulevard in the area of the District is an estimated average 8,600 daily vehicle trips. The figure also shows that the traffic along Baldwin Avenue in the area of the District is an estimated average 10,500 daily vehicle trips. As the map in the City's General Plan does not include average daily vehicle trip information for Montecito Avenue (as this is not a through street), average daily vehicle trips of 2,255 have been estimated alongthis street usingthe property land uses along Montecito Avenue and the corresponding average daily trips information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. As such, summing the estimates above, the total average daily traffic flow through the District is 21,355 vehicle trips.
,x City of Sierra Madre
k"jN BS Draft Engineers Report — Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
Next, we must estimate the number of daily vehicle trips generated by properties within the District. To accomplish this, data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual was used to estimate the daily vehicle trips for each property within the District by assigning each parcel into an ITE Trip Generation Manual land use type. The estimated number of daily vehicle trips generated by properties within the District is approximately 18,617, as summarized below:
ITE Land Use ,-
Commercial -Auto
Estimated Daily
Vehicle Trips
366.03
Commercial -Business Office
857.54
Commercial -Entertainment
Commercial -Medical Office
221.07
425.18
Commercial -Restaurant
4,144.55
Commercial -Retail
9,178.11
Condo
23.24 Apartment
46.55 Gas Station w/ Convenience Store
651.12
Gas Station w/ Convenience Store and Garage
917.04
Industrial
537.92
Nursing Home
460.32
Park/Open Space
4.72 Religious/Lodgehall
696.03
SFR detached
87.42 Total
18,616.83
Therefore, the estimated number of pass-through vehicle trips related to properties outside of the District is 2,738:
However, simply estimating the number of pass-through vehicle trips does not necessarily indicate the level of benefit accruing to vehicles passing through the District. Estimating the total amount of time these pass- through vehicles spend within the District, as compared to the time that properties located permanently within the District, is a better indicator of the temporary benefits accruing to vehicles passing through the District.
To estimate the total time these pass-through vehicles spend within the District, and receive benefit from the Improvements, we must take into account the total road length of Sierra Madre Boulevard, Baldwin Avenue, and Montecito Avenue that is within the District, as well as the average traffic speed of each street (using local speed limits):
7)N
1 �� Cit; of Sierra Madre
! 11 Draft Engineer's Report — Downtown Landscging and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
Sierra Madre Blvd.
0.5239
25 0.0210
Baldwin Ave.
0.2496
25 0.0100
Montecito Ave.
0.2244
25 0.0090
Totals
0.9979
- 0.0399
Applying the total travel time through the District per vehicle of 0.0399 hours to each of the pass-through vehicle trips results in an aggregate daily pass-through time of 109.30 hours, in which vehicles passing through the District spend in proximity to the Improvements:
Further, the amount of time that District properties spend in proximity to the Improvements should also be considered to determine the overall benefit of the Improvements. Properties within the District are permanently located in close proximity to the Improvements and experience benefit from these Improvements 24 hours per day. As such, the previously identified daily pass-through time of vehicles receiving limited benefit from the Improvements should be compared to the total time the District properties spend in permanent proximity to District Improvements:
Time Class Hours Percentage
Total Pass Through Time 109.30 2.31%
Total District Property Time 4,632.00 97.69%
Totals 4,74130 100.00%
(Y) Equals the number of properties within the District (193) multiplied by 24 (hours).
Of the total benefits provided by the street -related Improvements, the percentage of time allocated to vehicles passing through the District is 2.31%. Therefore, this percentage of 2-31% reflects the amount of general benefit accruing to vehicles passing through the District.
E
7) N BSra
City Sierra Macre
Draft Engineer's Report— Downtown Land3&ping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
5.2.3 EFFECTIVE GENERAL BENEFIT
�. In order to determine a singular general benefit percentage, it is necessary to combine the two separately analyzed components of general benefit described above. Given the unique benefits that each Improvement provides and the separate analysis necessary to identify any park maintenance general benefits, it is appropriate to weight the general benefit percentages according to number of benefits offered by each Improvement category. As previously noted, there are four separate benefits provided to the street lighting and street trees and other landscape improvements, and there are two benefits provided to park maintenance. A summary table is provided below for each Improvement category:
Accessibility
Aesthetic 4 66.67%
Economic Activity
Desirability
Economic Opportunity 2 33.33%
I I
The percentage of total benefits provided by each Improvement category can then be assigned to each previously identified general benefit percentage. The weighted general benefit percentages are then summed to identify the total District Effective General Benefit.
The total Effective General Benefit for the District is 23.85%.
B�+ City of Sierra Madre
+� Draft Engineer's Report— Downtown LandscaWg and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
6. BUDGET
The following table summarizes the estimated annual costs to fund the Improvements for Fiscal Year 2021/22:
6.1 Maximum Balance to Be Assessed
The total maximum amount to be assessed upon the specially benefitting parcels is the total cost of the Improvements, as detailed above, less the portion of Maintenance costs attributable to General Benefit as detailed in the Separation and Quantification of General Benefits section.
The calculation of the balance to be assessed is shown below:
Total Cost of Improvements
$124,490.00
Less Maintenance General Benefit Portion (23.85%) (29,689-'62) Total Cost of improvements to Be Assessed$94,800,38
—I N BS city of Sierra MadrQ n
Deft Engineers Report —Downtown landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
6.2 Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point
The Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is determined by dividing the Total Cost of Improvements to Be Assessed by the sum of the Total District Special Benefit Points noted in Section 5.
The calculation of the Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is shown below:
Balance to Be Assessed - $94,800.38
Total District Special Benefit Points 1,971.48
Ma) mum Assessment Rate per Sreciai Benefit Pointtu I
1 $gg,Og
(1) Beginning July 1, 1013 the maximum assessment per Special Benefit Point will be increased by the c.:2 -r in the Consumer Price Index far all Urban Consumers. ftar the Las Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim CA region compared year over year not to exceed 3% annually.
The Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is multiplied by each parcel's Total Special Benefit Points to determine a maximum assessment amount per parcel.
6.3 Actual Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point Based on the most -recent parcel characteristics, the Maximum Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point is expected to generate approximately $94,800 in maximum assessment revenue during Fiscal Year 2021/22_ However, the City intends to utilize available funding to supplement the Fiscal Year 2021/22 balance to be assessed. Based on City's additional contribution, the Fiscal Year 2021/22 balance to be assessed to property within the District is $0.
6.4 Annual Maximum Assessment Rate increases
Each parcel's actual assessment is determined by multiplying the assessment rate by the parcels total specific benefit points. If the total special benefit points change in future years, the allowable annual Maximum Assessment Rate will not be recalculated. The allowable annual Maximum Assessment Rate per special benefit poirr4 plus the annual cost of living inflator, will remain fixed. The actual annual assessment rate will be calculated by dividing the fiscal year's net cost estimate to be assessed by the fiscal years total special benefit points, not to exceed the allowable annual Maximum Assessment Rate for that fiscal year.
The Maximum Assessment Rate per special benefit point is escalated each year on July 1 by the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, for the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim CA region not to exceed 3% annually, beginning July 1, 2023.
In any given year, the assessments may be levied at any rate sufficient to meet the estimated budget, as long as the actual assessment rate does not exceed the Maximum Assessment Rate for that fiscal year.
BSCity of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineers Report- Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
� 6.5 Future Changes to Parcel Characteristics
Future changes to parcel characteristics (building, frontage, and land use) will cause changes in the total assessment revenue. The assessment revenue for any given year will be the product of the District's parcel characteristics and the budget in effect for such fiscal year. Development within the District that increases the overall building square footage, for example, will lead to increased assessment revenue, even if the assessment rate is not increased.
6.6 Data for Annual Assessment Calculations
Each year, as part of the assessment calculation procedures, the City or its designated consultant shall determine the land use type for each parcel based on the county Assessor's use code or other supplementary information made available and deemed reliable. The parcel characteristics of building square footage shall similarly be based on the County Assessor's secured rolled data for the applicable year and may be supplemented with other reliable data sources. The linear street frontage of each parcel shall be determined by reference to County Assessor's parcel maps or, if necessary, to GIS data.
Assessment amounts may change over time in accordance with changes to parcel characteristics including land use type and building square footage.
6.7 Appeals
If any property. owner believes the data used to calculate the assessment is inaccurate for any reason, the property owner shall submit, in writing, a request for review to the City. The property owner shall provide documentation needed to support the request for review. The City or its designated consultant shall review the request and provide a response to the property owner. The property owner must be current in the payment of all assessments when filing the request for review and must remain current during the review process. The property owner should continue to pay any regular property taxes due according to the County's due dates.
If the review conducted by the City or its designated consultant results in changes to any parcel characteristics used to compute the assessment, the City or its designated consultant shall recalculate the assessment. When recalculating the assessment, the assessment rates actually applied in such fiscal year shall be used. only the assessment for the parcel or parcels subject to review shall be recalculated.
If the recalculated assessment is less than the amount submitted to the County on the secured property tax roll, the difference shall be credited back to the property owner. This credit shall be limited to the current fiscal year and the prior fiscal year, if applicable. The fiscal year" shall follow the County's fiscal year for property taxes, from July 1 to June 30. The applicable fiscal year shall be determined by the date the request for review is submitted to the City_
For example, if a request for review is submitted to the City during Fiscal Year 2022/23, the Fiscal Year 2022123 and 2021122 assessments will be reviewed. The property owner credit shall be limited to any difference calculated for Fiscal Year 2022123 (the current fiscal year) and Fiscal Year 2021122 (the prior fiscal year).
N BS iof Sierra Madre 73
Da
���; draft Engineer's Report —Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
The credit may be provided in the form of a check to the property owner, an adjustment to the current year's property tax roll (if possible), or a credit to the succeeding year's assessment thereby reducing the amount placed on the secured property tax roil for such year.
If the recalculated assessment is greater than the amount submitted to the County on the secured property tax roll, the City or its designated consultant shall apply the recalculated assessment to the succeeding year's property tax roll and no adjustments shall be made to the prior or current fiscal years' assessments.
In any dispute over parcel characteristic data used to compute assessments, the City shall make a conclusive determination and its decision shall be final.
6.8 Method of Collection
The assessments will be collected annually on the County/s secured property tax roll. The assessments will be subject to the County's assigned due dates and late penalties. However, the City may choose to collect the assessments in an alternate manner (including directly billing the property owner) as may be deemed appropriate or necessary by the City.
n
CCity of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineers Report— Downtown Landsmpl and Lighting Maintenance obt ict (October 2020)
7. ENGINEEWS STATEMENT
The City of Sierra Madre Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District assessments described in this Report have been prepared pursuant to Article XIII D of the California Constitution. In preparing these assessments:
L I have identified all parcels that will have a special benefit conferred upon them by the Improvements described in Section 2 of this Report (the "Specially Benefited Parcels"). a. For particulars as to the identification of these parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram, a copy of which is included in Section 8 of this Report
2. 1 have assessed the estimated costs and expenses of the Improvements upon the Specially Benefited Parcels. In making such assessment:
a. The proportionate special benefit derived from the Improvements by each Specially Benefited Parcel was determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the Improvements;
b. No assessment has been imposed on any Specially Benefited Parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on such parcel by the Improvements; and
c. The general benefits have been separated from the special benefits and only special benefits have been assessed.
?01=k I, the undersigned, respectfully submit this Engineer's Report and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, this Report, the assessments, and the Assessment Diagram herein have been prepared and computed in accordance with the Assessment Law.
By:
G. Egan
Assessment Engineer
R.C.E. 14853
City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineees Repmrt—Downtown Landsw*gand Luting Maintenance District (October. 2020) 21 75 /'1
S. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
The following pages contain the assessment diagram for the District.
By� City of Sierra Madre
�7 Draft Engineers Report—Downtown tandsca9ftand LWng Maintenance District (October 2020)
V
U
Q
W
z
�a
to
wUJIQ
C7 z o w z
0 M <LL
Z J W-�
2 Z o00
W
ui _z U COQ to
Qa
V
z
0 0
ggnun
OCC •R�
o�
°2mo
=L
of
w
$o
aF
s
� la
O
o<o
O -F
FCy�-
uo
rytd�
<p
z0
O OD
<ut
p�F
6 A ff
H¢
GG y�ppO
LLG¢
0 r
Q
D
z
W
CO)
U)
Q
H
0 1—
G
W
U
z
Q
z
W
1—
z
Q-
H
J
z
z
Q
V
CO)
Z
O
z
O
0 as
oWz
tea°
�ofi
1000
�jaF
00 N
ca
M1 A A A A A A A A A
A W A A M1 n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Im+ A A M1 A ^ A A A AA A A A A m m W m m p p m m m W p p m W m m p p W m p W IG m m p m g m VJ W m p W W to W p ADD
a 9 moZSEO ; IWGq a smcas 2 t5 mmA� 9! AAAAAAs W W SAgmta(ym m' m p Op W N l7 b W A W'p W 00�gmm� me -N l7 Am m O�Nl7Q W OA W 4 T 9144 �Ry4��' O N N N N N l7 epi l0 p
CL ���44R4RR�444�44RRR��44�R4�?�I���3�?�444
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 77 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A w A A A A A A A A A A A w A A A A A A A w A A m A W W W q talc= W WtDW W W01010 SG /Dq gWmW'043 tGWIDW WIGW WmW W W WlOmmmWOW W�m Q N !7 W W A 10 O N l9 V W m A W Ol pp N w tp ' �mp m O N t� Wm mm A GI O N tq W W A m m �005'0OO�"^"^^"^N.�N-. cI� Nm".t0 a9 �eq '
A Gl O�-N l0' 1D m Gl N O mA W A Nt9 W A A Q !1 OWN
daI��m4a��8IG4m9l��o44�m4�99Wm A.44aR4mmAl2
�Ao9
10M4?49i4t:44^RRA4 RiR44H41NGjjat
mmort99
W m �
` A q A A Am 1 A A A q mys C mc m m m m W 0� m m 0 0
NRm V O O Gf O a�1rt�Y R N m W Ol Oi+im e7O0m`10 � 00000 LV ��4�w �4R4�i444444449444R499444994R4944R999949494949949444
A A A A A M1 A A A A A A A A A A A A^^ A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M1 m W m W mm mG)m W W ml'Om m W OmmOm� m OG)O ��mmmmmm W W W mmm W mm W mm W W W 46 AAA A A A A A A M1 A A e e L A M1 A A A M1 A A A A A M1 AAAA A II� A A A A A A A M1 A A A A w q W mmgq ggqmqqm ©v] loo. epp wm mq lm. mm mq oq blgV 1q�1 fp ltWl plq�mp VC��Cp qm pm me lG mq I0 lmG qm qe� G N C% < q m A W O r .W- r m O N N R N g W AN N 1� Pl N N l7 p l7 O O O V R Q R m Q m m 0
9. ASSESSMENT ROLL
The following pages contain the proposed 2021/22 assessment roil for the District. �[ - city of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineer's Report —Downtown Landsca�irig and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 MAXIMUM AND PROPOSED ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ROLL as
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Fiscal Year 2021/22 Proposed
APN
Maximum Assessment
Actual Assessment
5767-013-001
$719.80
$0.00
5767-013-002
437.69
0.00 5767-013-003
364.99
0.00 5767-013-018
525.32
0.00 5767-013-024
1,154.59
0.00 5767-013-800
1,218.11
0,00
5767-013-801
36.20 0.00
5767-013-900
532.61
0.00 5767-014-019
713.30
0.00 5767-014-020
503.51
0.00 5767-014-021
225.34
0.00 5767-014-022
251.01
0.00 5767-014-023
142.97
0.Q0
5767-014-028
101.96
0.00 5767-014-032
253.93
0.00 5767-014-035
2,586.00
0.00 5767-014-041
105.00
0.00 5767-015-014
753.28
0.00 5767-015-028
353.57
0.00 5767-015-029
961.20
0.00 5767-015-030
1,080.65
0.00 5767-015-031
341.56
0.00 5767-015-032
232.79
0.00 5767-015-033
256.85
0.00 5767-015-034
665.58
0.00 5767-015-036
61.45 0.00
5767-015-037
349.83
0.00 5767-015-038
705.19
0.00 5767-015-039
193.45
0.00 5767-015-M
890.19
0.00 5767-015-041
579.20
0.00 5767-015-042
190.49
0.00 5767-015-044
376.40
0.00 5767-015-045
169.69
0.00 5767-015-046
169.69
0.00 5767-015-047
317.60
0.00 5767-0154048
410.89
0.00 5767-015-055
637.33
0.00 5767-015-104
514.16
0.00 5767-015-105
1,101.20
0.00 5767-015-106
241.52
0.00 as
10'1
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 MAXIMUM AND PROPOSED ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ROLL APN
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Maximum Assessment
Rscal Year 2021/22 Proposed
Actual Assessment
5767-015-107
128.48
0.00 5767-015-108
128.48
0.00 5767-015-109
128.48
0.00 5767-017-028
3,709.75
0.00 5767-018-001
496.16
0.00 5767-019-002
781.49
0.00 5767-018-003
359.00
0.00 5767-018-004
180.97
0.00 5767-018-005
113.11
0.00 5767-018-006
308.75
0.00 5767-018-007
682.48
0.00 5767-0184108
174.28
0.00 5767-018-009
113.96
0.00 5767-018-010
90.25 0.00
5767-018-011
150.77
0.00 5767-018-012
145.38
0.00 5767-018-013
313.15
0.00 5767-018-014
234.43
0.00 5767-018-015
86.75 0.00
5767-018-016
332.74
0.00 5767-018-019
76.49 0.00
5767-018-020
239.05
0.00 5767-018-021
242.45
0.00 5767-018-022
84.84 0.00
5767-018-023
49.89 0.00
.5767-018-024
244.72
0.00 5767-018-025
354.70
0.00 5767-018-900
0.00 0.00
5767-019-009
573.03
0.00 5767-019-016
480.05
0.00 5767-019-017
538.08
0.00 5767-019-018
495.67
0.00 5767-019-019
265.34
0.00 5767-019-020
452.81
0.00 5767-019-024
504.54
0.00 5767-019-025
356.93
0.00 5767-019-027
727.28
0.00 5767-019-030
654.83
0.00 5767-020-001
319.02
0.00 5767-020-002
662.45
0.00 5767-020-003
135.75
0.00 81
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND UGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 NMIMUM AND PROPOSED ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ROLL APN
Fhscal Year 2021/22
Maximum Assessment
Fiscal Year 2021/22 Proposed
Actual Assessment
5767-020-004
464.77
0.00 5767-020-005
212.35
0.00 5767-020-006
318.54
0.00 5767-020-007
319.95
0.00 5767-020-008
211.52
0.00 5767-020-017
158.72
0.00 5767-020-023
903.35
0.00 5767-020-024
1,286.57
0.00 5767-020-025
420.84
0.00 5767-020-900
656.15
0.00 5767-022-001
898.09
0.00 5767-022-002
248.82
0.00 5767-022-W3
590.22
0.00 5767-022-004
178.83
0.00 5767-022-006
320.26
0.00 5767-022-010
178.10
0.00 5767-022-011
466.09
0.00 5767-022-012
552.96
0.00 5767-022-015
208.56
0.00 5767-022-036
47.51 0.00
5767-022-038
0.00 0.00
5767-022-039
1,064.20
0.00 5767-022-045
74.85 0.00
5767-022-046
936.12
0.00 5767-022-052
1,191.71
0.00 5767-022-053
194.57
0.00 5767-022-054
877.50
0.00 5767-022-055
275.50
0.00 5767-023-001
593.96
0.00 5767-023-002
243.18
0.00 5767-023-003
88.13 0.00
5767-023-004
277.30
0.00 5767-023-005
304.43
0.00 5767-023-006
298.16
0.00 5767-023-007
433.88
0.00 5767-023-008
168.24
0.00 5767-023-009
84.84 0.00
5767-023-013
1,053.84
0.00 5767-023-014
271.51
0.00 5767-023-015
203.63
0.00 5767-023-018
507.57
0.00 82
eam+.
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 MAXIMUM AND PROPOSED ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ROLL APN
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Maximum Assessment
Fiscal Year 2021/22 Proposed
Actual Assessment
5767-023-019
209.19
0.00 5767-023-020
167.35
0.00 5767-023-021
125.51
0.00 5767-023-022
204.21
0.00 5767-023-025
301.54
0.00 5767-023-026
334.70
0.00 5767-023-031
1,862.94
0.00 5767-023-034
427.28
0.00 5767-023-038
152.74
0.00 5767-023-041
0.00 0.00
5767-023-042
1,274.44
0.00 5767-023-043
735.79
0.00 5767-023-900
377.73
0.00 5767-023-901
169.69
0.00 5767-024-006
448.50
0.00 5767-024-007
894.51
0.00 5767-024-008
1,183.09
0.00 5767-024-009
305.44
0•Q0
5767-024-010
809.46
0.00 5767-024-011
589.78
0.00 5767-024-012
1,065.52
0.00 5767-024-013
640.68
0.80 5767-024-014
537.47
0.00 5767-024-015
796.19
0.00 5767-024-016
0.00 0.00
5767-024-017
0.00 0.00
5767-024-018
305.44
0.00 5767-024-030
169.69
0.00 5767-024-033
254.54
0'00
5767-024-039
1,414.15
0.00 5767-025-038
639.86
0.00 5767-025-041
166.30
0.00 5767-025-042
1,824.92
0.00 5767-025-066
683.67
0.00 5767-025-069
601.27
0•Q0
5767-025-907
135.75
0.00 5767-026-005
933.28
0.00 5768-018-022
660.34
0.00 5768-018-023
630.50
0•00
5768-019-001
1,623.70
0.00 5768-019-003
434.75
0.00 83
IQ
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ASSESSMENT RSCAL YEAR 2021/22 MAXIMUM AND PROPOSED ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ROLL APN
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Maximum Assessment
Fiscal Year 2021/22 Proposed
Actual Assessment
5768-019-025
0.00 0.00
5768-019-026
874.31
0.00 5768-019-041
6,862.19
0.00 5768-019-043
244.35
0.00 5768-019-066
33.36 0.00
5768-019-067
129.04
0.00 5768-020-001
899.64
0.00 5768-020-002
141.10
0.00 5768-020-020
413.90
0.00 5768-020-021
0.00 0.00
5768-020-022
169.69
0.00 5768-020-023
0.00 0.00
5768-020-024
596.36
0.00 5768-020-025
0.00 0.00
5768-020-028
261.20
0.00 5768-020-029
0.00 0.00
5768-020-030
339.79
0.00 5768-020-031
0.00 0.00
5768-020-039
50.90 0.00
5768-020-902
0.00 0.00
5768-020-905
339.38
0.00 5768-020-906
0.00 0.00
5768-020-907
0.00 0.00
5768-020-908
0.00 0.00
5768-020-909
452.51
0.00 5768-020-910
339.38
0.00 5768 -021 -ON
1,360.22
0.00 5768-021-030
315.69
0.00 5768-021-031
1,544.54
0.00 193 Parcels
$94,787.65('1
$0.00
(1) Total does not match Balance to be Assessed in Section 6 due to rounding 84 10. REFERENCES
Beutz v. County of Riverside, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Sonander v. Town of Tiburon, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1116 (Cal. Ct App. 2007) Coder, Kim D. "Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests." University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service - Forest Resources Publication, October 1996.
Crompton, John L "Parks and Economic Development." American Planning Association, p. 31-48, 2001.
Department of Parks and Recreation, California (DPR). "The Health and Social Benefits of Recreation." Sacramento, CA: Calftmia State Parks, March 2005.
Golden MY Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Diego CA411, D062203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Iris Vilnai-Yavetz & Shaked Gilboa (2010) The Effect of Servicescape Cleanliness on Customer Reactions, Services Marketing Quarterly, 10, lOW/15332951003604386 Kearney, Anne R. "Residential Development Patterns and Neighborhood Satisfaction: Impacts of Density and Nearby Nature." Environment and Behavior. 38,112-139, 2006.
Manteca Unified School District v. Reclamation District No. 17 et al, C077906 (Cal. Ct App. 2017) Sierra Madre, City of. "General Plan." Sierra Madre, CA: City of Sierra Madre, 2015. "Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition." Volume 2: Data, Volume 3: Data. Washington, D.C.: Institute of r� Transportation Engineers, 2012.
�; Ni City of Sierra Madre
Draft Engineers Report— Downtown Landsc.ping and Lighting Maintenance District (October 2020)
City of Sierra :-
Agenda Report
90fue Capoccia, Wayvr
Rackelle-Arizmendt, WayorTro Tem
Gene Goss, CouncdNember
,%6nifara6edian, CouncdWem6er
Sue Spear; City Cle k
Mchael,Amend City Treasurer
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chris Cimino, Director of Public Works
Sophia Kownatzki, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
DATE: November 10, 2020
SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS AND DECLARING
ITS INTENTION TO FORM THE DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING
AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, APPROVING THE
ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
A PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDERING THE INITIATION OF
ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following:
1) Adopt a resolution Initiating Proceedings to form the new Downtown Landscaping Lighting Maintenance Districts (Attachment No. 1); 2) Adopt a resolution Declaring its Intention to form the new Downtown Landscaping Lighting Maintenance District (Attachment No. 2); and 3) Approving the Engineer's Report for the new Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (Attachment No. 3); and
4) Setting a time and place for a pubUc hearing for January 12, 2021 and ordering the initiation of assessment ballot proceedings
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may choose to not approve Resolution 20-70 and not authorize the formation of a new District. This would mean that the City would continue to collect special assessments via the four existing special assessment districts in the area. The current districts do not collect sufficient fees to cover the costs of FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 86 ITEM NUMBER
Resolution 20-70 Initiate Proceedings and Declaring Intention to Form Downtown LLD November 10, 2020
the services and maintenance currently provided under these districts. The difference in maintenance and service costs that is not covered by current assessments would likely need to be paid from the City's General Fund.
SUMMARY
The City currently has four existing special assessment districts which finance various services and improvements including parking, lighting, landscaping, and associated maintenance within the Central Business District area of the City. Each of the four districts was established to fund the cost of improvements and maintenance of specific benefits in the downtown district, however, two of the districts do not collect enough funds and are subsidized by expenditures from the General Fund. The remaining two districts collect more revenue than is required for the benefit provided and have accumulated a fund balance of $697,282 at the end of FY 19-20.
City staff has identified the need to correctly balance the amount of revenue collected within the district(s) with necessary expenditures. If formed, the new district would pay for the maintenance of the landscaping and lighting improvements put in place by these existing assessment districts and fund the implementation and associated maintenance of additional similar improvements nearby. The new district would collect approximately $30,000 less than the current combined collection of the four districts. ff successful, the City intends to use surplus fund balances to discount assessment amounts for the first two years of the new levy.
In response to the need for appropriate funding for such maintenance, staff proposes the formation of the Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (the "District") and levy special assessments therein. The formation of the new District will be subject to a majority protest proceeding for the property owners within the territory, in compliance with the Califomia Constitution Article )IIID and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act Gov. Code Section 53730 et seq.
ANALYSIS
Tonight's City Council meeting is being held to approve the Resolutkms to Initiate Proceedings and Declaring its Intention to Form the District, along with approving the Engineer's Report and to set the date of the public hearing for the formation of the District.
Before the date of the public hearing, assessment ballots will be mailed to the property owners within the proposed District's boundary, to vote for or against the formation of the District.
To assist the City in proceeding with the formation process for the District, the City hired NBS. NBS has prepared the Engineer's Report for the District, which provides a description of the improvements, the estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the � District, and the District assessment roll containing the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 levy for each parcel within the District. NBS has worked with the City Attomey to ensure 87 Resolution 20-70 Initiate Proceedings and Declaring Intention to Form Downtown LLD November 10, 2020
recommendations will meet local, state, and federal regulations including compliance with Proposition 218 and appropriate assessment district regulations. NBS will handle the noticing and protest ballot process, and submit the appropriate materials to Los Angeles County by the Fiscal Year 2021-22 property assessment deadline.
Taking into consideration the financial burden placed on businesses during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the City intends to discount assessment charges for the first two years, should the formation succeed.
Property owners' assessments for the upcoming fiscal years would be charged as follows:
While data for assessment charges are not yet available for Fiscal Year 20-21, comparisons for charges from Fiscal Year 19-20 show overall savings. With this recommended additional assistance, property owners already subject to assessments would save on average $2,136 per parcel overfiscal years 2021-2023, a total of $181,531 ^ between 85 parcels. From fiscal years 23-24 and onward, the assessment charges for those 85 parcels are on average about $600 less per parcel than in comparison to average assessments in Fiscal Year 19-20.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The formation of the District will have a beneficial impact to the City's budget as activities and benefits in this district would no longer be subsidized by the City's General Fund.
Because assessments charged for the proposed District must be spent within the District, the City would be able to ensure efficient use of funds to revitalize the downtown business area for future years while still reducing overall charges by approximately $30,000 annually. Further, the special assessment will provide appropriate funding for maintenance costs within the territory. Finally, the total assessment collected under the proposed District would be less than the assessments which are currently being collected by the four districts, resulting in an overall decrease in assessments paid by businesses and residents in the district area.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report are available at the City Hall public counter, at the Sierra (Madre Public Library, and can be accessed on the City's website at www.citvofsierramadre.com . 88 FY23 24 and
FY20-21
FY21 22
FY22 23
on
Ws subsidy
50% of
100%
Currerrt
proposed
proposed
rate
$0
assessment
I assessment
$145,768
While data for assessment charges are not yet available for Fiscal Year 20-21, comparisons for charges from Fiscal Year 19-20 show overall savings. With this recommended additional assistance, property owners already subject to assessments would save on average $2,136 per parcel overfiscal years 2021-2023, a total of $181,531 ^ between 85 parcels. From fiscal years 23-24 and onward, the assessment charges for those 85 parcels are on average about $600 less per parcel than in comparison to average assessments in Fiscal Year 19-20.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
The formation of the District will have a beneficial impact to the City's budget as activities and benefits in this district would no longer be subsidized by the City's General Fund.
Because assessments charged for the proposed District must be spent within the District, the City would be able to ensure efficient use of funds to revitalize the downtown business area for future years while still reducing overall charges by approximately $30,000 annually. Further, the special assessment will provide appropriate funding for maintenance costs within the territory. Finally, the total assessment collected under the proposed District would be less than the assessments which are currently being collected by the four districts, resulting in an overall decrease in assessments paid by businesses and residents in the district area.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Copies of this report are available at the City Hall public counter, at the Sierra (Madre Public Library, and can be accessed on the City's website at www.citvofsierramadre.com . 88 ?00r
Remfution 20-70 Initiate Proceedings and Declaring Intention to Form Downt wrn LLD November 10, 2020
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment No. 1 — Resolution 20-70 Initiating Proceedings to Form the Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
Attachment No. 2 — Resolution 20-71 Declaring Intention to Form the Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District
Attachment No. 3 — City of Sierra Madre Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District Engineer's Report
Attachment No. 4 — Sample Mailer Information for Parcel Owners 80 OOMAN RESOLUTION NO. 2020-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CI' y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE DfMATING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 TO FORM THE CITY OF SIERRA yIADRE DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE SAID DISTRICT, AND ORDERING THE
PREPARATION OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Council ("City Council") of the City of Sierra Madre ("City") that the public interest, convenience and necessity require the installation, operation, maintenance and servicing of street lighting, street tree and other landscape maintenance and park maintenance thereto, as set forth in Section 22525 of the California Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that, to finance such facilities and the maintenance and servicing thereof, certain property that will receive special benefit from the maintenance and servicing of such facilities should be included within the "Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District" of the City of Sierra Madre ("District"); and WHEREAS, the proceedings for the formation of the District are authorized by and will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 (commencing with Section 22500) of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code ("Assessment Acte'); and
WHF,REAS, the City Council has also determined that proceedings for the levy of assessments on property within the District to pay the costs of the maintenance and servicing of such facilities during Fiscal Year 2021-2022 should also be conducted pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 22620) of the Assessment Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate proceedings to form the District and to levy annual special benefit assessments within said District pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Assessment Act and Article XMD of the California Constitution (Proposition 218); and V4UAI AS, this District, if approved by property owners, will take the place of the existing Landscape District No. 3 and Parking District No_ 5, as well as Zones A & B of the City's Lighting and Maintenance District No. 3; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained NBS to prepare an engineer's report and to conduct the formation proceedings pursuant to the Assessment Act; and WHEREAS, the proceedings for the formation of the District and the levy -of special benefit assessments shall relate to the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022.
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
90 •4*00&1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1Cf RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre as follows:
SECTION I. That the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the City Council proposes to form the District to pay for the costs to provide the improvements and services within the proposed District pursuant to the Assessment Act and the provisions of Article X[I]D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).
SECYl0N 3. Generally, the improvements which shall he maintained for the benefit of the proposed District and through the special benefit assessments levied annually shall include but not be limited to the following:
(a) the installation, construction or operation of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and crosswalk lights;
(b) the installation, planting or maintenance of landscaping, including, but not limited to, turf, trees, parks, streetscapes and parkways; /&MIN (c) the installation, construction or operation of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) and (b) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and
(d) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing_ SECTION 4. The property to be specifically charged for the maintenance and servicing of such improvements shall include all of the land in the County of Las Angeles, which is generally located along Sierra Madre Boulevard, Baldwin Avenue, and Montecito Avenue in the City of Sierra Madre, and shall be designated as the "Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District".
SECTION 5. NBS, the Engineer for the District, is hereby ordered to Prepare and, upon completion, file a report with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 22555) of Chapter 1 of the Assessment Act, with respect to the formation of the district and the levy of special benefit assessments on the property described in Section 4 to pay the costs of the maintenance and servicing of the improvements desen-bed in Section 3 hereof during Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Said report will contain detailed descriptions of the District and the improvements to be constructed, maintained 4AW•, and serviced.
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
,•—•, SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and it shall become effective immediately upon its approval.
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 101H DAY OF NOVEMBER
ATTEST: CITY OF SIERRA MADRE:
Sue Spears, City Clerk John Capoccia, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aleks Giragosian, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
I, SUE SPEARS, CITY CLERK of the City of Sierra Madre do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre held on the 10& day of November 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Sierra Madre, California, this ' day of 20
Sue Spears, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
93 94
.-•. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA
MADRE DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO FORM THE CITY OF
SIERRA MADRE DOWNTOWN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT,
AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND
ORDER ING THE FgTIATION OF ASSESSMENT BALLOT
PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020 by Resolution, the City Council ("City Council") of the City of Sierra Madre ("City"), State of California, in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500), and Article XIE D of the California Constitution (collectively referred to as the "Assessment Law'j, initiated proceedings to establish a maintenance district known and designated as the Downtown Lan&capina and Lighting Maintenance District, hereafter referred to as the "District'; and WHEREAS, NBS has filed with the City Clerk an Engineer's Deport and Boundary Map for the District, which are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to declare its intention to form the District and to provide for the levy and collection of annual assessments, beginning with the next ensuing fiscal year, to provide for the costs and expenses necessary to pay for the maintenance and servicing of the improvements (defined below) within the District; and WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report has been filed with the City Clerk and submitted to this City Council in accordance with the Assessment Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Engineer's Report as presented and is satisfied with the proposed formation, each and all of the budget items and documents as set forth therein and is satisfied that the levy amounts have been spread in accordance with the special benefit received from the improvements, operation, maintenance and services within the District as set forth in said Engineer's Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre as follows:
SECTION 1. That the Engineer's Report as presented, consisting of the following: a description of improvements, the estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the District and the District assessment roll containing the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 levy for each Assessor's parcel within the District, is hereby approved and ordered to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk as a permanent record and to remain open for public inspection_
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
Page I of 4
95 A*Uftk SECTION Z. That the City Council proposes to form the District to pay for the costs to provide the improvements and services within the proposed District pursuant to the Assessment Act and the provisions of Article XIM of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).
SECTION 3. Generally, the improvements which shall be maintained for the benefit of the proposed District and through the special benefit assessments levied annually shall include but not be limited to the following:
(a) the installation, construction or operation of public lighting, facilities, including, but not limited to, street lights and crosswalk lights;
(b) the installation, planting or maintenance of landscaping, including, but not limited to, turf, trees, parks, streetscapes and parkways; (c) the installation, construction or operation of any facilities which are appurtenant to any improvements listed in (a) and (b) or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof including, but not limited to, irrigation, drainage, and electrical facilities; and
(d) the maintenance and servicing of any of the foregoing. .�, SECTION 4. The properly to be specifically charged for the maintenance and servicing of such improvements shall include all of the land in the County of Los Angeles, which is generally located along Sierra Madre Boulevard, Baldwin Avenue, and Montecito Avenue in the City of Sierra.
Madre, and shall be designated as the "Downtown Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District".
SECTION 5. The City Council orders that costs and expenses of maintaining and operating any or all public improvements of a local nature, including the cost of necessary repairs, replacements, fuel, power, electrical current, care, supervision and any and all other items necessary for the proper maintenance and operation thereof, shall be assessed either partly or wholly upon such district as the City Council determines will be benefited by the maintenance and operation of the public improvements proposed to be maintained; the amounts so assessed, and shall be collected in the same manner and by the same county officers as the taxes are collected for general city purposes.
SECTION 6. The Engineer's Report, as approved by the City Council and on file with the City Clerk and is open for public inspection. Reference is made to the Engineer's Report for a fail detailed description of the improvements to be maintained, the boundaries of the District and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the District.
SECTION 7. Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is scheduled to be held at the City of 110W^1 Sierra Madre, City Council Chambers, 232 West Sierra Madre Boulevard, Sierra Madre, California Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
96 ,•m-, on January 12, 2021 at 6:30 pm or as soon thereafter as feasible. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. The assessment ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public hearing following which time they will be tabulated. The City Council shall consider all oral statements or written communication made or filed by any interested person in regards to the proposed District.
SECTION S. The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the Public Hearing by mailing the Notice of Public Hearing and Assessment Ballot Procedure and filing of the Engineer's Report, together with the assessment ballot materials to the record owners of all real property proposed to be assessed in accordance with the Assessment Law, Section 53753 of the Government Code and Section 4 of Article 3G» of the California Constitution.
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
97 Aom%� APPROVED AND ADOPTED T S 10M DAY OF NOVEMBER
ATTEST:
Sue Spears, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Aleks Giragosian, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE
CITY OF SIERRA NIADRE:
John Capoccia, Mayor
I, SUE SPEARS, CITY CLERK of the City of Sierra Madre do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Sierra Madre held on the 10' day of November 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Sierra Madre, California, this d' day of 1 20
Resolution No. 2020-71
November 10, 2020
98 Sue Spears, City Clerk
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO- 7
ROLLING HILLS
(FISCAL YZAR-2 31-c6202a).
EPIGINEER'S R€EQRT
AS MODIFIED
CONTENTS
4. Assessment
2 Cost Summary/Assessment Range
3. Assessments for Each Parcel
4. Method of Apportionment
5. Description of Work
6. Summary Statement of Influencing Factors for Maintenance District Budget
7. C fftificatlon5
99 '
ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS. on June 4, 1997, the City Council of the City of Fairfield, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted a Continuing Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Reports for Maintenance Assessment Districts; WHEREAS, said resolution directed the undersigned to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 et seg. of said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the City Council of said City, hereby makes the following assessment to mover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance of said improvements and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by said district.
The amount to be paid for the maintenance of said improvements, and the expenses incidental thereto, are as shown on the cost summary on page 3 of this report.
Reference is made to the original assessment diagram for maintenance dated May 1988, which is hereby amended by the assessment r011 contained herein.
I do hereby assess the net amount to be assessed upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within said landscaping maintenance assessment district by apportioning that amount among the several lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the maintenance of said improvements, and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.
Said assessment is made upon the several bis or parcels of land within said landscaping maintenance assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to to received by said Tats or parcels, respectively, from the maintenance of said improvements. The diagram and assessment numbers appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property.
Each lot or parcel of land assessed is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Solano for the fiscal year 2019- 2020 and includes all of such parcel excepting those portions thereof within existing public mads or right of way to be acquired in these proceedings for public road purposes. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Because the names of the several owners are unknown to me, I hereby place the word "Unknown" opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the amount assessed rean and the ber of the assessment-
Dated:
ssessment
Dated: JuIuI Z^y�0 r
PAUL V. KAV H,q!
Interim Director of Public Works
R.C.E. No. 66014
Expires 6/30/20
100
FUND 077 - ROLLING HILLS (LLMD #7)
} FY2021 22 REQUESTED BUDGET
06 -SPECIAL ASSESSAAENTS
01 - INT INC ON POOLED INVESTMENTS
01 -TRANS IN GENERAL FUND 011
07749-000 REVEN
TOTAL
101 - SALARIES
103- OVERTIME
105 - LEAVE TIME
111 - BUDGETED SALARY SAVINGS
201 - LEAVE PAYOFFS
209 -SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
210 -DEFERRED COMPENSATION
211 - ICMA VANTAGECARE RETIREE HLTH
212 - POB ER RATE
219 - UNIFORMIEQUIPIBOOT/AUTO
220 - MEDICAUDENTALNISION
221 -DENTAL AND VISION
231 -BUDGETED BENEFITS SAVINGS
235 - LIFEIDISABILITY INSURANCE
X238 - SPECIAL COMPENSATION
240 - PERS-MISCELLANEOUS-CLASSIC
1241 - PERS-MISCELLANEOUS-PEPRA
1242 - PERS MISCELLANEOUS-UNFUND LIAR
1334 - STREET LIGHTS
1405 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
1441 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1702 - PG&E -ELECTRICITY
1704 - WATER SERVICES
3814 - WC INSURANCE CHARGES
3830 - VACATION/SICK LEAVE CHARGES
3502 - PJCT CST-ENGNRNG-STUDY/DESIGN
3505 - P,fCT CST -CONSTRUCTION
3512 - PJCT CST-REPIMAINT-DISTRICTS
077-08-001 EXPENSES
- COST ALLOCATION
- COUNTY ADMIN EXPENSES
077-99-000
TOTAL
NET SUR2PLL
ENDING UNRESTRICTED CASH
1 PROD
FY21-22 REQ'D
299,935
315.174
1,500
-
35,374
35,374
336,809
350,548
FY20-21 PRGJ
23,986
313
2,737
(567)
1 403
804
185
1,452
29 5,887
327
101
91 111
605
2,506
5,730
10,000
327,000
3,000
120,000
1,542
2,135
36,000
25,000
568,819
FY21-22 REQ'D
25,827
3,859
(1.189;
432
776
198
1,486
81 7,353
428
93 208
3,115
6,653
10,300
223,000
3,090
110,000
581
973
396,901
20,554 21,171
2,848
2,933
23,402
24,104
592,221
421.005
32&,609 71,197
255.412) (70,457
71,197 740
VARIANCE
15,239
(1,500)
13,739
13,739
1,841
1313
1,122
(1
30 14
35 51
1,466
101
1128
2 (111
609
1,124
300
223,000
(327,000'
90 (10,000
(961
(1,162
(36,000
(171
617
85 702
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 — ROLLING HILLS
ENGINEER'S REPORT
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
CONTENTS
1. Assessment
;2_ Method of Apportionment
3_ Description of Work
4_ Summary Statement of Influencing Factors for Maintenance District Budget S. Certifications
6_ District Budget
7. Assessments for Each Parcel
102
ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1991, the City Council of the City of Fairfield, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted Resolution 91-136, A Continuing Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Reports for Maintenance Assessment Districts; WHEREAS, said resolution directed the undersigned to prepare and file a report pursuant to Section 22565 et seg_ of said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said Act and the order of the council of said city, hereby makes the fallowing assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance of said improvements and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by said district
The amount to be paid for the maintenance of said improvements, and the expenses incidental thereto, are as shown in section 6 of this report.
Reference is made to the original assessment diagram for maintenance dated May 1988, which is hereby amended by the assessment roll contained herein. 1 do hereby assess the net amountto be assessed upon all assessable lots or parcels of land within said landscaping maintenance assessment district by apportioning that amount among the several lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the maintenance of said improvements, and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof_
The diagram and assessment numbers appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made for a more particular description of said property.
Each lot or parcel of land assessed is described in the assessment list by reference to its parcel number as shown on the assessor's maps of the County of Solano for the fiscal year (FY) 2021- 2022 and includes all of such parcel excepting those portions thereof within existing public roads or right-of-way to be acquired in these proceedings for public road purposes. For a more particular description of said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the county recorder of said County- Because the names of the several owners are unknown to me, I hereby place the word "Unknown" opposite the number of each lot or parcel of land assessed, the amount assessed thereon and the number of the assessment.
Dated: July 6, 2021-- —--
Ryan�anganiban
City Engineer/Asst. Director of Public Works
R.C.E. No. 74795
Expires 12/31/21
1 103
104
Final official results from the Solano County elections office.
Ballot question
The question on the ballot
Measure P: "To address the City of Fairfield's Fiscal
Emergency, offset significant budget cuts and state
financial takeaways, and maintain City services,
including neighborhood police patrols, firefighters, 9-1-1 response times, crime, drug and gang prevention
programs, maintenance of streets, medians and street
lights, parks and recreation servicesrand other general services, shall an ordinance be adopted to enact a one
cent sales tax for five years, with citizen's oversight. annum independent audits and all funds spent only in
Fairfield?" Ill
Start Download (Free)
PDF HUb Online Open
See also
• Sales tax in California
External links
® Local measures on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Solano County 105
106
Grand jury: Details
.- •
D_ AIL_Y REPUBLIC
By Todd R Hansen
FAIRFIELD — The city can clearly show where Measure P dollars come into the city, and generally how they go out, but the 2019-20 Solano county grand jury reported "Fairfield's accounting system currently cannot specifically track how this revenue is spent."
The concern is about having more specific detail in the accounting. "The grand jury found the reports (to the Fairfield Taxpayers Committee) presented a confusing mixture of forecast figures and interim budgetary figures," the grand jury report states. "They discuss the impacts of Measure P revenues and provide a percentage breakdown of where they are used." For example, the annual report presented in 2019 states that the Measure P fund allocations were: police, 41%; fire, 24%; streets and roads, 22%; parks and recreation, 6%; (citywide) public safety support, 4%; and homeless engagement and response team, 3%, the report states.
The report does acknowledge that public workshops and hearings are held during the budget process, and therefore Measure P is open to questions and discussion if anyone wants to raise the issue.
Fairfield Mayor Harry
Price
Mayor Harry Price, who just received a copy of the report, said he is not exactly sure what the grand jury wants to see.
"To some extent, the city is doing that in the breakdown of the departments and where the money is spent," Price said.
He noted that the grand jury report specifies information within each department of Measure P expenditures, such as patrol, traffic, investigations, administration, dispatch and community services within the Police Department; although precise breakouts of funding to each category are not provided.
"I need to spend more time with the report," Price said.
He also has called the grand jury for clarification, he said.
The oversight committee was formed to ensure transparency and oversight of the revenue." The grand jury reports that the committee does not participate in the city budgeting process and does not, in fact, provide input as to the use of measure P revenues' The grand jury made five findings with corresponding recommendations_ The grand jury recommends the city "develop a system to track Measure P dollars from collection to disbursement so that the public can easily see how and where these funds are applied." 107
it further recommends the city `enhance public transparency and consistency by directing the Fairfield Taxpayers Committee to base any reporting on actual year-end data rather than forecast data." The third recommendation calls for the city to `establish a protocol to validate the accuracy of financial data before it is published by the Fairfield Taxpayers Committee,' while the fourth recommendation encourages the city to `expand the scope of the annual audit to include additional procedures directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of noncompliance relating to accounting matters."
The audit recommendation comes from a letter by the firm that audited the city, which states:
"in connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the city failed to comply with the provisions of Ordinance 2012-20, insofar as they relate to the collection, management and expenditure of Measure P sales taxes in the city general fund. However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance. Accordingly, had we performed additional procedures, other matters may have come to our attention regarding the city's noncompliance with the above -referenced terms. provisions, or conditions of the ordinance, insofar as they relate to accounting matters." Finally, the grand jury recommends that the city amend the resolution that established the Measure P Committee to "define 'taxpayer.' "
Measure P was passed by the voters in 2012, authorizing the city to collect an additional l% sales tax for five years.
Voters in 2016 extended the tax through Viarch 31,2033- The
1,2033.The report, which was released May 28, goes into extensive detail about the city's financial condition prior to Measure P and provides information about those finances after the measure passed and was extended.
Measure P revenues have represented between 18% and 20% of the city's general fund from 2015 to 2019, ranging from $16.64 million in the first of those five years and $19.6 million in the last. "The funds gainto the city general fund along with those collected from other revenue sources and can be used for any municipal purpose. The City Manager's Office and Finance Department, with support from each of the operating departments, manage the budget process," the grand jury report states. "Public hearings and community workshops are conducted on the proposed budgets to review all appropriations and sources of funding. This is the only mechanism for public participation in deciding how Measure P funds should be used. The city is able to track the sources of revenue, but since they are comingled in the general fund, the city accounting system, as currently configured, cannot identify Measure P funds that are allocated to individual cost centers for specific uses or projects. Therefore, there is currently no straightforward way to track revenues generated by Measure P to their specific uses in city operations," the report states.
Printed in the June 17, 2020 edition on page A41 Published on June 16, 2020 Tags A4 Last Modified on June 16, 2020 at 1:35 pm
108
I- Solvency. If any district has a deficit, the City
Council may determine upon a recommendation by the
Maintenance District Committee to enter into an agreement to loan money to the district with the stipulation that such money will be paid off with interest based upon the City's cost of funds within a specified term of three to five years.
H. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS. The first three years of the initial maintenance costs and reserves for the improvements within the maintenance districts shall be funded by the developers and builders. The developers and builders may deposit with the district an amount for the three fiscal years or pay three annual amounts based on the Engineer's report.
I. GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. The City Council may at
their discretion make contributions to districts from the General Fund to cover the cost of providing services
determined not just to benefit the district, but the City at large. Such contributions may include direct deposits to maintenance district accounts or credits which effectively reduce district assessments. The Council shall establish the appropriateness and level of any credits or contributions related to:
I. Double Taxation. maintenance district property
owners pay property taxes which, in part, go to fund
maintenance of street lighting and roadside landscaping throughout the City. In maintenance districts, where
maintenance requirements are higher, property owners also pay special assessments to cover maintenance costs for
the landscaping and lighting improvements in their
neighborhoods.
2. Arterial Median Maii-freuance. Maintenance district
property owners pay to maintain median landscaping for
arterials that run through their neighborhoods. In most cases, development would not been allowed to proceed
without the landscaping. This median landscaping
benefits maintenance district homeowners by creating the housing opportunity, enhancing the character of
neighborhoods and increasing property values_ This
arterial median landscaping also creates a citywide
benefit by creating aesthetic thoroughfares traveled by citizens at large.
Since maintenance district property owners are paying to maintain citywide facilities through their property taxes and district arterial medians through their special assessments, the Council hereby directs the Finance Department to apply a - 4 -
1 I
109
General Fund Contribution to the Residential Maintenance Districts. It is the intent of this Council, in applying a General Fund Contribution, to mitigate the above referenced issues related to Double Taxation and Arterial Median
Maintenance. The General Fund Contribution is shown in
Exhibit B and shall cover the following:
I. City General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses.
The General Fund Contribution shall cover City G&A
expenses as itemized in the budget.
2_ Interior Street Lights. The General Fund
Contribution shall cover per lot costs to maintain and
power residential street lights interior to a
subdivision. General Fund contributions for interior
street lights shall be made in accordance with the Street Light Credit shown in Exhibit C-2. The credit per lot
is based upon the electrical energy and maintenance costs for a standard city -owned streetlight including "cobra head" fixture. Therefore, the residential maintenance
districts are only paying for increased costs for
electrical energy and maintenance associated with
decorative streetlights.
3. Arterial Street Lights_ General Fund Contributions
shall cover 100 percent of the costs to maintain and
power arterial street lights within any given Residential Maintenance District. General Fund contributions for
arterial street lights shall be made in accordance with Exhibit C-1.
a. Axterial Median Maintenance_ The General Fund
Contribution shall cover 50 percent of the costs to
irrigate and maintain arterial median landscaping within any given Residential Maintenance District. General Fund contributions for arterial median maintenance shall be
made in accordance with Exhibit C-1.
Section 2. BILLING CONTROLS AND ADJUSTMENTS
A. ACTUAL EXPENSES_ Maintenance district funds shall be used to pay for the expenses included in the approved
maintenance budget and Engineer's report. These funds can also reimburse the homeowners association for expenses
incurred in accordance and pursuant to the maintenance budget accepted by the City Engineer.
- 5 -
110
B. FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDITING. The Finance
Department shall prepare an annual financial report for each maintenance district within sig months after the close of each fiscal year. Annually an internal audit shall be conducted by the Finance Department of each district's revenues and
expenditures. An external audit of any district's revenues and expenditures by a competent auditing firm that employs industry standards for financial record keeping and reporting shall be conducted at the request of the Residential
Maintenance District Committee. Any costs associated with the audit and preparation of the financial report shall be
directly billed to each district.
An external audit for fiscal year 1990/91 has been requested by the Residential Maintenance District Committee and will be provided at no cost to the Residential Maintenance Districts.
C. BILLING ADJUSTS. The 1990/91 fiscal year
adjustments totalling $177,761 in credits to the various districts as determined pursuant to the Finance Department's internal audit are hereby approved.
D. DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS. Work which benefits any
maintenance district shall be either directly billed to the benefiting district or covered by indirect (overhead or general and administrative) charges.
1. Direct Costs. City personnel who are required to
perform work for Maintenance Districts, shall directly
charge the benefiting district for the work performed.
Direct charges shall be based on actual payroll expenses and vehicle rental charges for the person providing the service. Exhibit F-2 shows the maximum allowable
direct charges for City Personnel.
2. Indirect Costs. To the extent that work is
performed, but not directly billed, overhead and general and administrative rates shall be established to cover
the cost for doing the work. Public Works overhead and
Citywide general and administrative (G&A) charges shall be applied against annual operating and administrative
expenses as indicated below.
a_ City G&A. City general and administrative
expenses will be covered by General Fund
Contributions as specified in Section 3.I. of this
resolution. City G&A expenses shall be determined
on the basis of the most recent cost allocation
plan. For fiscal years 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92
City G&A shall be 6% pursuant to the Finance
Department's most recent Cost Allocation Pian.
- 6 -
ill
MUM 4090 [wMABi107
City GAL If1ae 111
Interior it. U911e 1 57.211101
drterlal 31. Ll9ht3
Sit o! WIU LS Oki. f Alter
Is Wea Col! Cosrse Caalrlb%tias
�terr+rAi46t�s-C6srgQleredtts-
20tal City Cwtrl6atloa
W -�213,6
EXHIBIT °B"
GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION
34:21 -All- iii- ow i/Ir
-f1,0i/- $62.111 S!!0 S18.I61 51,147
$1,710
112
AJk It/i- iltr �i;il0•--
SUl S1.i19 ~$1.411 42H.0i-
kiFY. $112,293
Revised Jaly 23, 1991
1 SAM 111CA
IACLUDIM
lU1DIS1
10116
VIUM9
Win
10 ira
Mol
cir"D
IAUD
IESIDEr1.
AIGILAIDS
GATES 1E UTIEE
====-
HIM
ISTATE3
EUMS 1908/1001
IOIiE
013131CT3
41,710
-
------
�--
-�-
$25,390
-9t.i40-
S10,018
514A
Sf,150
51,150
570
51.1]0
SI.1H
�315;iil-
A/l
$1,646
111
$1,101
591!
$11
SI.S11
SI.171
511,111
1/A
$11191
All
1017
5751
All
$1.550
All
$21,126
VA
All
111
$12,911
All
Ali
5164
911
$17.411
All
SUM
I/d
Ill
AIA
111
Jul
1/1
$43,000
34:21 -All- iii- ow i/Ir
-f1,0i/- $62.111 S!!0 S18.I61 51,147
$1,710
112
AJk It/i- iltr �i;il0•--
SUl S1.i19 ~$1.411 42H.0i-
kiFY. $112,293
Revised Jaly 23, 1991
1 Date July 18, 2022
To: RHNN Board Members, David Thacker, Rick Johnson
From: Barbara Pascone
Re: ADDENDUM #1 TO BINDER REPORT DATED JUNE 10 2022
Research and public records request were on-going when the original report was written.
Exhibit N:
This is the City Council Agenda Report dated June 4, 2019, hereby the following is stated, "The process of approving the annual assessment amounts is subject to the provisions of Proposition 218. The district has adopted assessment ranges and assessments may be adjusted as required within the specific range without requiring a Proposition 218 vote of the property owners".
This explains why 90 percent of Resolutions adopted by council states, that the annual assessment amount does not exceed the ranges for Rolling Hills ($250-$300) or Serpas Ranch ($150-$250). In years of a deficit, the maximum range was assessed on the Engineer's Report and the adopted Resolution stated something like, the assessment amount does not exceed the maximum range(s).
The problem for the city is, that Senate Bill 919 (chapter 38), amended sections of Proposition 218, effective July1, 1997. The amendment (in part) added Government Code 53739, which basically stated, an Ordinance or Resolution pursuant to Government Code 53739 or article 13C & 13D of the California Constitution may state a range of rates or amounts presented for voter approval at an election held for that purpose. Only if the vote is approved, may the government agency impose a tax, assessment, or property related fee or charge at any rate or amount that is less than or equal to the maximum amount authorized by the voter -approved Ordinance or Resolution. (THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN).
In my public records request on July 7, 2022, 1 asked the city to provide "all documentation concerning Residential Landscape Districts Resolution Voting", and their response was, there are no responsive documents. Therefore, the exception to Government Code Section 54954.6, does not apply here.
In addition, Senate Bill 919, also added, Article 4.6, Government Codes 53750-53756, the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. This basically explained to local governments what was required of them to implement Proposition 218. (I explained and gave these Government Codes to Councilmen Timm last night).
In my testimony last night I stated, "For the past 25 years, the city has never assessed our district nor conducted an annual Engineer Reports that complies with Proposition 218, Articles 13C & 13D of the California Constitution, and the city also violated Government Code Section 53739 and Sections 53750-53756. Therefore, you cannot approve our districts
Engineer Report this evening until you "levy" the assessments under Prop 218, by adopting a Resolution initiating Proposition 218 procedures, etc.".
The City Attorney May Be Correct in saying, that nothing in the binder indicates city liability.
This is basically true, because the original report does not mention that the assessments were not levied pursuant to Proposition 218, or Articles 13C/13D of the California Constitution, or that the city never adopted Proposition 218, by Resolution. As such, I told some of you yesterday; I'm thinking, how can the city be in violation of Proposition 218, Articles 13C/13D, when they never adopted an Ordinance/Resolution initiating Proposition 218 or their procedures?
Therefore, I believe the city's liability is, that they violated the California Constitution's mandatory requirements by failing to adopt Proposition 218, Articles 13C & 13D of the California Constitution that became mandatory in 1996, and effective on July 1, 1997, nor did they adopt the mandatory Proposition 218 amendments under Government Code Sections 53739 and 53750-53756, that became mandatory and effective on July 1, 1997.
The City Engineer Reports: As stated above, all annual Assessment Engineer Reports, adopted by the city, were not levied under Proposition 218 because the city never adopted Proposition 218, et.al., and therefore, general benefits were never separated from special benefits, etc.
As we learned last night, it's city procedure to have an Engineer only sign off on the Engineer Report and not actually prepare it. This is because the city never adopted Proposition 218, 13D.
However, 13D, Section 4, requires that the assessment must be supported by a detailed Engineer's Report, prepared by a professional Engineer, certified by the State of California.
What is Our Defense? The bottom line is, "The City Broke the Law!! From 1997, until 2021/2022, we never received any information from the city concerning Proposition 218. 1 didn't even know what Proposition 218 was until after CivicMic mentioned it and I researched it. I believe David T. was the first person to address Proposition 218, with Public Works, maybe around 2019. How could any district object to something they were never told about? Further Research of the July 1 1997 Assessment Increase: I was kind of sketchy about the fiscal year 1997-1998, assessment increase for Rolling Hills/Serpas Ranch. However, I now have confirmation through adopted Resolutions. (please (keep in mind that Fairfield's fiscal year (FY), begins July 1 and ends June 30).
In Resolution 97-113, for FY 1996-1997, Rolling Hills assessment was $196.23, and Serpas Ranch was $151.26.
In Resolution 97-113, and Resolution 98-95, for FY 1997-1998, Rolling Hills assessment was $236.91, and Serpas Ranch was $93.97. Since Rolling Hills assessment increased as of July 1, 1997, this would trigger the requirements of Proposition 218, 13C/13D.
In Resolution 98-95, for FY 1998-1999, Rolling Hills assessment was $282.36, and Serpas Ranch was $179.97, this would also trigger the requirements of Proposition 218, 13C/13D, and for any year thereafter that the assessment amount increased.
There are also three other lots in the Rolling Hills District and any increase in their assessment would qualify for an increase to our district under Proposition 218, 13D.
Our District's Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance: Each homeowner has been and is currently assessed a separate $80/per year for Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance:
However, in (Silicon Valley Taxpayer's Association vs Santa Clara Open Space Authority, 2008 WL 2717789, Cal. July 14, 2008), the court pointed out that Authority had never identified any "special benefits" to the assessed parcels based on their direct relationship to the locality of the improvements, proportional benefits, etc., as required by Proposition 218.
ANOTHER CLASS -ACTION NAMING THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AS A DEFENDANT:
An article online called, "A Wave of Public Agencies Statewide Are Swept Up In A New Water -Rate Lawsuit" (by Atkinson, Adelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo Law Firm), filed February 17, 2020, against 81 Water Agencies throughout California.
One of the Causes of Action is, Violation of Constitutional Rights (Prop, 218). The Fairfield Plaintiff is, Pamela Davis.
The article stated, if your agency has questions about this particular lawsuit or would like guidance regarding the legal, procedural and substantive requirements of Prop 218, feel free to contact our office. (One attorney listed is Robert E Anslow (Partner), rob.anslow(Caaairr.com (949) 453-4260.
Rolling Hills
Landscape maintenance District No. 7
Fund 077
Actual
Proposed
20182019
2019,2020
1 Revenues
2 3 Assessments
us -i"
289A02M
4 5 City Contributions
9 Median
35,375.00
35,375.00
10 Subtotal City Contributions
35,375.00
35,375.00
11 12 Interest
4.20800
4.20800
13 14 Total Revenues
324,734.00
339,385.00
15 16 Expenses
17 18 Landscape Maintenance
125,415.00
153,666.00
19 Unscheduled Expenses
500.00
2,000.00
20 Water
118,257.00
120,000.00
21 Street Lighting
500.00
2,000.00
22 PG&E Electricity
2,699.00
3,000.00
23 Open Space Maintenance
1.00000
3,100.00
24 Cost AllorationPlan
18.718.00
18,718.00
25 Printing/Notices
200.00
200.00
26 County Colon Fees
2,848.00
2,848.00
27 Publiic Waft Administration
38,123.00
39,648.00
28 Special Projects
688.00
as.aa0 uo
29 30
31 32 Til Expenses
308,948.00
430,180.00
33 34 Net Revenue (Expense)
15,786.00
(90 795 00)
35 36 Balances
37 Beginning Unreserved Balance
220,762.45
236,548.45
38 Net Revenue (Expense)
15.786.00
(90 795 001
39 Use of Reserves
000
o.a0
40 Contribution to Reserves
000
(80,077 95)
41 Ending Unreserved Balance
236,548.45
65,675.50
42 43
44 45 Cash Flow Reserve
46 Beginning Balance
180,899.55
180,899.55
47 Use of Reserve
0.00 48 Contribution to Reserve
000
43,467.45
49 Ending Balance
180,899.55
224,367.00
50 Designated Ending Balance
180.899.55
224,367.00
51 Cash Flaw Reserve Policy 65% of expense 18-27
52 53 Repair Reserve
54 Beginning Balance
34.331.00
34,331.00
55 Use of Reserve
0.00 0.00
56 Contribution to Reserve
000
36,610 50
57 Ending Balance
34,331.00
70,941.50
58 Designated Ending Balance
34,331.00
70,941.50
59 Repair Reserve Policy 25% of expense 18-23
113
FUND 077 - ROLLING HILLS (LLMD ##7)
00"N" FY2021 22 REQUESTED BUDGET
REVENUES
FY20-21 PROJ
FY21 22 REITD
6106 -SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
299,935
315,174
6401 - INT INC ON POOLED INVESTMENTS
1,500
-
7601 -TRANS IN GENERAL FUND 011
35,374
35,374
077-99-000 REVENUE
336,809
350,548
TOTAL REVENUE
336,809
350,5#8
EXPENSES
FY20-21 PROJ
FY21-22 REQ'D
8101 - SALARIES
23,986
25,827
8103 - OVERTIME
313
-
81 D5 - LEAVE TIME
2,737
3,859
8111 - BUDGETED SALARY SAVINGS
(587)
(1,189)
8201 - LEAVE PAYOFFS
1 -
8209 - SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
403
432
8210 - DEFERRED COMPENSATION
804
776
8211 - ICMA VANTAGECARE RETIREE HLTH
185
198
8212 - POB ER RATE
1,452
1,486
8219 - UNIFORM/EQUIPBOOTIAUTO
29 81
8220 - MEDICAUDENTAWISION
5,887
7,353
8221 -DENTAL AND VISION
327
428
8231 - BUDGETED BENEFITS SAVINGS
(435)
(564)
8235 - LIFE/DISABILTTY INSURANCE
91 93
9238 - SPECIAL COMPENSATION
111
-
8240 - PERS-MISCELLANEOUS-CLASSIC
605
208
8241 - PERS-MISCELLANEOUS-PEPRA
2,506
3,115
8242 - PERS-MISCELLANEOUS-UNFUND LIAR
5,730
6,853
8334 - STREET LIGHTS
10,000
10,300
84D5 - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
-
223,000
8441 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
327,000
8702 - PG&E -ELECTRICITY
3,000
3,090
8704 - WATER SERVICES
120,000
110,000
8814 - WC INSURANCE CHARGES
1,542
581
8830 - VACATION/SICK LEAVE CHARGES
2,135
973
9502 - PJCT CST-ENGNRNG-STUDYIDESIGN
36,000
-
9505 - PJCT CST -CONSTRUCTION
25,000
9512 - PJCT CST-REP/MAINT-DISTRICTS
-
077-08-001 EXPENSES
568,819
396,901
8836 - COST ALLOCATION
20,554
21,171
9038 - COUNTY ADMIN EXPENSES
2,848
2,933
077-894399 EXPENSES
23AM
24,104
TOTAL EXPENSES
592,221
421,0(35
BEGINNING UNRESTRICTED CASH BALANC
NET SURPLUSIDEFICff
326,609
(255,412)
71,197
(70.457)ENDING
UNRESTRICTED CASH BALAN
71,1971
740
114
VARIANCE
15,239
(1,500)
13,739
13,739
VARIANCE
1,841
1,122
(1
30 14
35 51
1,466
101
(128
2 (111
609
1,124
300
223,000
(327,000;
90 (10,000
(961
(1,162
(25,000)
(171,918)
617
85 702
(171,216)
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2019 - 66
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD GRANTING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT, DECLARING INTENTION
TO ORDER LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING THEREOF FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 — ROLLING HILLS
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Fairfield, County of Solano, State of California, that:
Section 1. On June 4, 1991, this City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-136, A Continuing Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District. Pursuant to said resolution, the Engineer designated therein prepared a report in accordance with Section 22565 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code for the Rolling Hills Maintenance Assessment District (the "District").
Said report has been made, filed with the City Clerk and duly considered by this City Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminary approval granted_ Said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the foregoing resolution.
Section 2. It is the intention of this City Council fo levy and collect assessments within the Rolling Hills Maintenance Assessment District for the fiscal year 2019-2020. Within said District, the existing and proposed improvements and any spbstantial changes proposed to be made to the existing improvements are generally as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
Section 3. Said District consists of the lots and parcels shown on the boundary map of the District on file with the City Clerk in the City of Fairfield.
Section 4. The amount of the proposed assessments for fiscal year 2019-2020 are as followed: Rolling Hills Zone $314.57 per lot and Serpas Ranch Zone - $212.17 per lot.
The amounts for the proposed assessments per parcel do not exceed the adorpfed ranges for this district (Rolling Hills $200.00 - $314.57 and Serpas Ranch $150 -- $332.15).
Section 5. Reference is hereby made to the aforementioned Engineer's Report, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the Maintenance Assessment District, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within said district. Within said district, any public property owned by any public agency or in use in the performance of a public function shall be assessed.
lis
0�)6� / 0/ -
167
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
ROLLING HILLS
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF INFLUENCING FACTORS ..Pq
FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICT BUDGET
The overall budget and the individual assessments for the Rolling Hills Maintenance District are proposed to increase but within the approved range. The assessment for the "Rolling Hills" zone is proposed to be $300 per lot. The assessment for the "Serpas Rand" zone is proposed to be $212.07 per lot. The proposed assessments for 2019/2020 do not exceed the ranges (Rolling Hills, established 3 erpas Ranch, established in 1995, 150 - previous y esta0lished for Ifie maintenance i5 aistnct revenues are meeting —trie�expen ures
with very liffle a spare. In the coming years the LLMD will be forced to raise the assessment and possibly re -ballot the district to add a CPI escalation.
The commercial assessments for properties at the intersection of Hilbom Road and Lyon Road will remain the same as last year. The assessments for the commercial parcels do not exceed the ranges, established in 1994, for these parcels.
116
Testimgny of David
Thacker
What do property owners in Rolling Hills want?
The following Landscape Plan for Rolling Hills was given to the City in January 2019. What happened?
The plan was _Ri jeeted Outright by Cite Staff
i. The next replacement planting of interior subdivi.5ion street parking -strips shall occur in April 2019.
2. The number of replacement plants for parking* -strips in April 2019- shall number not less than 1.130.
3. Replacement plants shall be planted throughout the District in an even and fair allocation. per street segment. perplanting stage.
4. Irrigation :ierying am replacement planting shall be installed and'or reinstalled and,,or repaired. and tested for adequacy.
6. Within 90 days City shall commission a professional landscape survey of the entire District landscape area to determine locations ref now barren areas %~-here City approved landscape plants Formerly existed_ grew- and were irrigated when homes were incorporated into District 7.
6. Not -later than June 1, 2019. City shall complete a comprehensive written plan of action to restore (prior) landscaped areas of District 7 based on the above plantim2 surrey. The plan shall state the number of plants required District -wide. the locations of intended replanting__ and a timetable for completion_ including adequate inigation for each plant.
7. All replanting noted in the surrey shall be ongoing. each month. and completed not later than April 30. 2021. including irrigation.
8. During JUIx. 2019 or August 2019. but not later than September 2019. fend of dry season) City shall perform a professional survey of all planted areas to determine where landscape is not receiving adequate water irrigation set :-ice and/or irrigation water i. flouring but not directed tr) landscape plan ts%shrubs,t•ees feasted water).
9. Corrective measures for landscape irrigation. identified by the abOVC itTigatir)n survey. shall begin immediately- be on-going. wnrked daily. and completed District -gide not later than April 30. 2021.y y
10. Any additional deterioration of landscape or irrigation subsequent to and not included in prior sui'vev shall be corrected immediately.
1 l . City professional landscape staff shall perforin. not less than weekly. a survey of landscape in all areas or District 7 and drxument findings in current -week reports to Public Works management.
The surveys shall include detailed. weekly progress ol'replanting,irrigation as well as then -current or changing plant viability. The reps m -i shall address tree teal' -drop Status and the need for leaf removal frorn landscaped areas within the District.
Mande part of official record as Attachment to City Council "Alnutes June 4, 2019. Agenda item y 17 Page ref
117
118
,^
n
Why are residents bringing this issue to the City Council? City of Fairfield Public Works Manager -Resident Meeting Januajry 9,2019.".
Present: City of Fairfield representatives Mr. Ken Radford, Mr. Richard Vasquez, Mr. Mike Gray, andCity resident Mr.
David Thacker
Focus of meeting was the condition and care of plants, or lack thereof, located, or previously located, im City owned parking strips throughout the Rolling Hills Landscape District 7.
The meeting was requested by Vasquez for the purpose of responding to Thacker's written requests for; information.
Basis of Thacker complaints, requests for remediation and questions of City relate to tate Landscape Maintenance Agreement in effect between the City and the City's contracted landscape company. Specifically, Sectspn 3 "Duty to Maintain Improvements" of that agreement, It should be recognized that the owners of property in Rolling Hills District 7 Landscape District are obligated to annually pay to the City a fee (currently $293 per home), above and beyond any tax imposed on other households within the City which are not located in a "Maintenance District" such 0. Rolling Hills.
On various occasions, and most recently on January 5, 2019, Thacker supplied photographic proof of Agreement-speci iic landscape in destroyed or missing condition (blighted) as well as photos of drip irrigation lines that are either not operational, disconnected splayed, 4rthat cause water to be deposited remote to, and nut serving any planting, which it was designed to serve, prior to the lack of proper maintenance thereof and allowing the plants to die -off.
I,n addition to the photographic evidence, on a prior visit to Thacker's residence, Vasquez and Radford were personally shown areas of barren dirt that were,once thriving, healthy, and heautiful landscape (City landscape cgntract language).
Tltackex advised on both this and prior visit that the damaged and barren areas are clearly visible wit%'even the most cursoryviewing.
The above is the context for the following recap of the meeting on January 9, 2019. Any mention of photos relates to the original communication between Thacker and City Public Works.
In response to Thacker email dated December 27, 2018.
Question. Why is the City Public Works Department allowing what appears to be unorganized and inefficient landscape (non) services to be perpetuated?
City response: We disagree this is happening.
Question. What is Public Works', doing to ensure timely, prudent equitable and minimally- responsible allocation of landscape care services throughout the Landscape District? City Response: The City "Landscape Inspector" (Radford) checks on the contractor work.
Question. What NEW DIRECTION (and oversight) will Public Works give to Dominguez to rectify the current malfeasarnce in District landscape care?
City Response: We will continue to monitor the landscape care as we do now. No changes will occur. We believe the landscape contractor is provided proper services under the provisions of the -Landscape Agreement The current condition of the landscape areas Thacker cites as blighted is no't the fault of the current landscape contractor. Barren areas of landscape existed prior to the current contractor signing on to provide City services. There is no current plan in place for any replacement phu3iti,pg for 2019, other than when we need a plum, we will make one; Should not take more than a few days to determine.
Made part of official record as Attachment to City Council Minutes June 4, 2019, Agenda Item #17 :Page Ll of 7 119
In response to Thacker email dated January 2, 2019
The following are questions posed in Thacker email dated January 2, 2019. City responses presented iat the meeting on January 9, 2019, in bold
1. Please advise how that number (130) of plants was determined and by whom? We do not know. :
2. In your opinion, what has caused the blighted areas of landscape within the District? We do not agree that there is any dight in Rolling Hills landscape areas. if there is:any blight, itwas promulgated by a prior City coutractar and also before current City staff (Radford. Vasquez, Gray) were involved.
3. Why was the street -side landscape allowed to die -off? We do not agree that the City allowed any landscape in Rolling Hills to dieoffs
4. Noting the exposed irrigation lines near dead plants, why is and was no corrective action taken, even now that you have personal knowledge of these decaying blighted areas?
We do not agree there is any blight in Rolling Hills City landscape.
S. During 2018, where, specifically, were one -gallon plants planted? Three loratiow% including Hillridge Drive
6. When was the last planting of ons -gallon plants, and specifically where? Hillridge Drive in December 2018:
7. What is your estimation of total one -gallon plants necessary to restore the District -wide landscape to its original abundance as when the developer's plass were approved by the City?.
We do not know. We will not use any City resources to determine the answer.
8. What is the role (duties) of the City Landscape Inspector? To oversee landscape care within the City.
9. What record keeping device or system does the City use to document District plantings, irrigation systems, and areas of concern in areas serviced by the lantiscape company?
�Nlicrosoft WORD.
The following questions and answer are relevant to the Thacker email dated January 5, 2019. Answers given at meeting are in bold.
1. Is the Rolling Hills Landscape District charged for use of landscape water depicted as being wasted in the following photos?
We do not agree there is any water waste in Rolling Hillsin City Landscape. The water used in ]Zoning Hills is charged against the ]polling Hills Landscape District account.
2. If the Rolling Hills Landscape District is indeed charged for use of landscape water, what is the total billing amount for water used over the past twelve months where billing has occurred? No answer was given.
Landscape Manager Gray's comments:
1. City believes the landscape is not deteriorating.
2. The landscape contract is awarded to the lowest bidder.
3. In order to provide better services the annual District fee charged to property owners would have to increase.
4. The funds available for landscaping in the District are stressed and near depletion. Wishes there was more money.
5. The City -approved Landscape irrigation system and type of trees originally planted are not suitable -for the areas in which they were approved.
Er
Made part of official record as Attachment to City Council Minutes June 4, 2019, Agenda Item #17 Page of 7 120
City Council Presentation May 21, 2019 by David Thacker e� I live in Rolling Hills; Fairfield
The neighbors I have talked with and I do not object to paying for city services provided to us. We do object to paying for services that are not;provided.
This resolution deserves a NO vote because of the following:
Landscape care and :.City oversight are not adequate.
The improvements supported by this resolution are not maintained as specified in City resolutions or maintenance agreement. Landscape plants that have died due to lack of care are rarely replaced. Broken and non-functional irrigation systems allow rarely re -planted replacement plants to die soon after planting. Thousands of yards of city controlled parking -strip landscape are now barren because the plants have died Some homes have only dirt where city landscape plants once grew. The City charges Rolling Hills property owners for irrigation water that regulvjy floods into street gutters while large areas of landscape wither and die due to lack of irrigation. The Public Works Department has stated landscape services Twill not be improved from what they are now.
Assessments are not collected fairly and equitably.
Rolling Hills Homeowners will pay a 7.5% increase.
The City contributionwill not increase.
Commercial properties in the District are not being increased.
The City Landscape agreement and Proposition 218 call for the assessment to be levied on city and schiool district property. However, two of the three neighborhood parks as well as the Rolling Hills School are not assessed.:; The over 1000 homeowners in the district pay to maintain the open space; whe3re cattle are grazed under license from the City. While the homeowners pay 1,0 maintain the grazing areas and fencing, neither the Ranchers nor the City;; contribute toward those improvements. It appears the City keeps all the grazing ,10*IN income for other uses not related to the landscape district.
Made pact of official record as Atmehment to City Council Minutes June 4, 2019, Agepds Item #17 Page 6 of 7 121
,-� The Engineer's report submitted as the basis of city Resolution 20198, is defective.
r,
There is not enough time to speak on the report's shortcomings. Therefore, I have prepared a separate package for you. It is a copy of a Public Records Regwst previously given to the City Manager and the head of Public Works. I have not yet received the requested information and the City response to this information request has been delayed for the maximum time allowed by law.
Most City landscape improvements are of no Special Benefit to propeMies in District 7.
The majority of improvements paid for by this assessment are located on Whom Road and in open -space. The General Benefit to all Hilborn Road and open -space property must be segregated and removed from consideration of any Special Benefit to Rolling Hill's parcels. Hilborn Road is now a busy, four -lane freeway commuter relief route. The improvements on Hilborn Road and open space are of General Benefit to the, public at large.
The Resolution is not legal.
Under provisions of California Proposition 218, in order to continue this assessment, at some time in the past either a unanimous or a majority vote of all stakeholders must have occurred. The Deputy City Clerk has advised: the! City has no record of any elect4on.
Thank you.
Made part of official record as Attachment to city council Minutes June 4, 2019, Agenda Item # 17 )cage 7 of / 122
Agenda Item No: 17.
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 4, 2019
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laura Snideman, Assistant City Manager
f
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing and Resolution 2019-107 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the 2019-2020 Engineer's Report, Confirming the Boundaries and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Hearing Thereof for Maintenance District No. 7 — Rolling Hills
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold continued public hearing and adopt resolution.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The adoption of this resolution will approve the fiscal year 2015-2020 Engineer's Report for Maintenance District No. 7 -- Rolling Hills and provide for the levy and collection of assessments. There will be a slight increase in the individual assessments proposed for the upcoming year.
DISCUSSION
The City formed this spedal district to provide a funding source for the maintenance of the landscaping and lighting improvements within the Rolling Hills development area. The district was formed under the State of California Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The City Council preliminarily approved the Engineer's Report on April 16, 2019- Final approval of the assessments requires a public hearing, which was scheduled for the May 21, 2019, City Council meeting. The Public Hearing which was initially set for May 21, 2019, was later continued to June 4, 2019.
The process of approving the annual assessment amounts is subject to the provisions of Proposition 218. This district has adopted assessment ranges and assessments may be adjusted as required within the specific range without requiring a Proposition 218 vote of the property owners.
The budget and individual assessments for the Rolling Hills Maintenance District is proposed to increase this next fiscal year by $21.57 to offset an increase of water, labor, and maintenance costs.
Special projects planned for this district include landscape and irrigation improvements.
Packet Na 158 of 218
124
Public Records Request Dated June 7, 2022, Rolling Hills Maintenance District #7 �► David Thacker
Tue 6!7/2022 12:40 PM
To: Kaushal, Paul
Cc Barbara Pascone ;David Thacker
Mr. Kaushal:
This is a Public Records Request. Submission date June 7, 2022.
Request #1:
Please provide any and all documents, authored or promulgated, and approved by the City of Fairfield during the calendar year 1994 which actually "established" the assessment ranges for Rolling Hills Maintenance District at "$200-$300". (During the calendar year 1994 means any responsive document was actually signed during that calendar year.)
Request #2:
Please provide any and all documents, authored or promulgated, and approved by the City of Fairfield during the calendar year 1995 which actually "established" the assessment ranges for Serpas Ranch Maintenance District at "$150-$250". (During the calendar year 1995 means any responsive document was actually signed during that calendar year.)
Quotations above are literally transcribed from,6ggUdafig aft fo M Council M—ag ing Date Julys, 1997. and other. City -developed documents, including various Engineer's Reports for the Rolling Hills Maintenance District W.
Very truly yours,
David Thacker
Fairfield
125
Mail - Barbara pascone - uuu-
616122 5:08 PM
From- l(Bushal, Paul
140� serw Thursday, lune 2, 2022 572 PN!
To: David Thacker 4V 1 c Records Reqs 11MD #7, Rolling Hills suir� RE: gesend,
Pubf
Hello Mr. Thacker, reviewing.
Sorry for not replying
meter. We have received your reque`� and staff is rev
Thanks,
Paul
From: David Thaw ` wi mhatrrMail.carrti�
Sent Thursday,
lune 02, 2Q?2 9-49 AM
To: Kaushal, Paul �p usl Fal #airfsefd.rs °V' D #7, polling Hills Sulrect Reseed, Fublir l�ecnrds lZeclkse3t. U -!"f
de the argan'rratiog• Do not dick links or open
atta&rnents unless you
m,l odginaL from otrksi
CAUTt�: This erthe Ca ntenE i5 safe -
recognize the sender and know
Mr. Kaushal: of this request
Please confirm receipt
Thank You,
David Thacker
Sent from my iPad
That ker
CC)> wrote:
On May 25, 2022, at 9:54 PM, David
Ca
I'if ornia Public Records Act Request for Documents. May 25, 2022.
Mr. l(aushal:❑f 1=airfield
Please reference
"Engineer's Report" for Fiscal Year 2021-2022, Contained in City Re
solLstian iwlo. 2021-166
d the district's
rt it is stated "The rates do not exceed rnerrt and X250 on Page 4 of the Engineer's Repo for the Rolling Hills develop adopted assessmerrt dm �nge � ms of $30ofor the SerPas Rancheveiop a reements, resolutions, or other
-Please produce all documentation of any g Rolling Hilts and Serpas Request is" pertaining
evidence,Df ments Q
f any agreement of "range maximums"quantifying the actual minimum lma�muR'
Ranch. This request includes any docu
n ranges adopted.
for commercial Properties at the intersection
Also on page 4, it is stated "She assessmentsb the Consumer Price Index rate of 0.M The of Hilborn Road and Lyon Road will increase Y
126 _ ...r, rm1`nAQAEYraT4L412170MZqp1{sg84µH63D
hMITJlauboo"Ve
616/22, 5.08 PM
Mail - Barbara Pascone - outlook
RE: Resend, Public Records Request, LLMD #7, Rolling Hills Lewis, Christiana
^Aon 6/6/2022 5:0PM
To: David Thacker
Cc: Kaushal, Paul ;Panganiban, Ryan N ;Park,
Lydia ;Lim, David G. (RWG Law) ;[email protected]
I i attachments (331 KB)
RE Public Records Request, LLMD x7, Rolling Hills
Hi Mr. Thacker,
Apologies, we start a response to your previous email shortly after you sent the follow up email below. Please see a copy of the City's response to your original request attached. Thank you. r7Chris Lewis I Management Analyst
Public Works I City of Fairfield
'1 V, -19O 1707-42&-7089 C 1707-720-3563
All; 111121 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA 94533
NIWW.i�lffi�Itl.Cr7._Oi:
Gly Hall is dosed the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month
From. David Thacker
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Kaushal, Paul
Cc: David Thacker ; Barbara Pascone
Subject: Re: Resend, Public Records Request, LLMD #7, Rolling Hills CAUTION: This email originated from ourside the organization. Do W dick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mr. Kaushal:
On May 25, 2022,1 sent to you a request for public records. (Attached below in email thread.) The City response to that request was due to me on June 4, 2022. As of June 6, 2022, 3:30 PM, I have received none of the requested documents/information.
Please advise when the requested documents will be delivered to me.
If there is no document responsive to my request in the possession of the City, please immediately inform me of that.
If you need additional time to comply with this request, please advise expected delivery date. ,-01�
Very truly yours,
David Thacker
Fairfield
127
https://oudoaklive.cent/rrral3/tld/AQQkADAWATY3ZmYRZS04 WRIT_TAYjkiH+iDACLTAwCgAQAEYraT4LgUFiRMsZgPjKs B4vAb3D v3
616/22.5:08 PM Mal - Barbara Pasame - Oudook
assessments fior the commercial parcels do not exceed the ranges maximums established in 1994 for these parcels"
Request #f2. Please produce the "Consumer Price Index" table relied upon for the "rate of
0.9%." If the table is not in your possession, please identify the source document relied upon which indicates the "0.9'6" increase.
Request N. Please produce all documentation indicating agreements, resolutions or any other documentation which document and quantify the "ranges maximums" established in 1994.
Very truly yours,
David Thacker
Fairfield
its
haW10W01:1k1ive.CmTdm aXOMAQQkIADAwATY3ZrnYAZSO4MVURILTJiYjWDACLT'AWCgAQAEYra74L%2FIRMSZQPjKS184W%30 313
Roiling Mills LLMD No. 7 Reduction in Maintenance Services ■ The LLMD No. 7 maximum assessment rates per parcel are $250 for the Serpas Ranch development and $300 for the Rolling Hills development. The rates have not changed since the 1990s and there are no authorized provisions in the rate formula for annual increases. • Assessments levied on benefitting properties and funding from the General Fund total approximately $330,000 annually for maintenance and related expenses within the boundaries of the district- Expenses
istrictExpenses in Fiscal Year 2020/21 totaled over $580,000 resulting in a $250,000 shortfall. In the past, the district's carry-over fund balance has been used to cover deficits, but the fund balance for the Rolling Hills LLMD No. 7 is no longer adequate.
• The majority of the expenses are for landscape upkeep and utilities, costing $330,000 and $130,000, respectively. Assessment rates cannot be increased without the participation and approval of property owners within the boundaries of the district- The City has initiated the process to ascertain support for a high level of maintenance service and the approval of a rate increase. In the meantime, a reduction in maintenance services is necessary to balance the budget and build a reserve for unexpected repairs. ■ The new scope of work, representing a reduction in maintenance services for LLMD No. 7, includes basic lawn mowing, annual shrub and ground cover pruning, high weed mowing, vditch, and drain cleaning, and leaf, litter, and trash removal. Under the new contract, the annual cost for these services will be $81,312, not including utilities estimated to be under $120,000. The contract covers the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023.
■ Please click here to view additional details on the reduction in maintenance services for Rolling Hills LLMD No. 7 including the new frequency for each maintenance task. • Please click here for the City Council Resolution and contract - Paradise Valley LLMD No. 11 Reduction in Maintenance Services • The LLMD No. 11 maximum assessment rate per parcel is $195. The rates have not changed since 1995 and there are no authorized provisions in the rate formula for annual increases - Assessments levied on benefitting properties and funding from the General Fund total approximately $270,000 annually for maintenance and related expenses within the boundaries of the district Expenses in Fiscal Year 2020/21 totaled over $288,000 resulting in an $18,000 shortfall- In the past, the district's carry-over fund balance has been used to cover deficits, but the fund balance for the Paradise Valley LLMD No. 11 is no longer adequate.
• The majority of the expenses are for landscape upkeep and utilities, costing $155,000 and $65,000, respectively. Assessment rates cannot be increased without the participation and approval of property owners within the boundaries of the district. The City has initiated the process to ascertain support for a high level of maintenance service and the approval of a rate increase. In the meantime, a reduction �~ in maintenance services is necessary to balance the budget and build a reserve for unexpected repairs. 129
Date: July 27, 2022
To: RHNN Board, David Thacker, Rick Johnson
From: Barbara Pascone
Re: ADDENDUM #4 TO RHNN BINDER REPORT DATED MUNE Id 2422 Since my research is concluding, this addendum is basically housekeeping for some outstanding issues. Please keep in mind that the allegations outlined in the original report and subsequent addendums are not conclusions of law or fact. After extensive research of California Law and the city's lack of responsive public records, all conclusions are reasonable, based upon information and belief. As such, the city has been unable to contradict any of the written or oral information presented to date.
Establishine Residential Maintenance Districts:
There were three City Council Resolutions, Establishing a Policy for the Development of Maintenance and Financial Standards for Residential Maintenance Districts (Resolutions 91- 213A, 91-213B, and 92-71).
Resolution 91-213B is (Exhibit N), in the binder, because at the time, I found this resolution referenced in several city documents through the late 2,000's.
However, all three resolutions are basically moot because they were adopted in 1991 and 1992, which is prior to the effective date of Proposition 218's fiscal impact that began July 1, 1997. To date, research has not uncovered any subsequent City Council Resolutions adopting this or a similar policy.
Rollinz Hills District No. 7, Landscape Contracts_
Further research shows for a total of 15years (from FY's 2004 to 2018), Rolling Hills District has been assessed the same amounts; Rolling Hills at $293.00 and Serpas Ranch at $190.50. The City Council Resolutions approving the Engineer Reports for those years are as follows:
Resolution 2004-143, the June 5, 2005, Agenda Report for City Council No. 21, Resolution 2006-166, Resolution 2007-131, Resolution 2008-168, Resolution 2009-156, Resolution 2010-193, Resolution 2011-132, Resolution 2012-153, Resolution 2013-172, Resolution 2014-163, Resolution 2015-157, Resolution 2016-160, Resolution 2017-124 and Resolution 2018-137
WAS THIS PROCEDURE INTENDED TO AVOID PROPOSITION 218's REQUIREMENTS?
TODAY, I SUBMITTED A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR ALL ADOPTED
LANDSCAPING CONTRACTS AND ALSO FOR THE NAMES OF THE ENGINEERS WHO PERFORMED THOSE ASSESSMENTS.
1 The 1996, Effective Date of Prouosition 218:
Beginning November 6, 1996, the day after Proposition 218 was ratified, local agencies were mandated to begin preparing for the fiscal impacts of 218, by reviewing all assessments and property related charges. By July 1, 1997, agencies were required to find other funding sources to make up the difference for those funds they would be losing, because as of July 1, 1997, only special benefits could be legally assessed.
As part of this process, if an agency found that any assessment was not exempt, they were required to bring the existing assessments into compliance with Proposition 218, by recalculating them. This was to ensure that an agency was only collecting the proportional share -of -cost to provide the special benefit(s) to each identified parcel.
The Maintenance of Public Streets:
An article was published June 18, 2012, by the Daily Republic called, "Fairfield Council to look at Maintenance Districts". The article stated (in part), that landscaping along public streets benefits the general public. However, since 1988, the city has charged Rolling Hills Maintenance District No. 7, for the landscape, lighting and maintenance of Hilborn, Lyon and Martin Road, even though they benefit the general public.
Since July 1, 1997, to present, collecting general benefits violated Proposition 218, Article XIIID and other Government Codes as well. How does the city plan to correct this? Auto Vehicle Dama es to Hilborn Road:
Rolling Hills Maintenance District No. 7 has been paying annual assessments for the maintenance of Hilborn Road since 1988.
A Rolling Hills homeowner reported at the July 19, 2022, City Council meeting, that there have been at least 12 accidents on Hilborn Road where autos hit the median, destroying plants, trees and shrubs. If the city receives reimbursement from insurance companies, does the city credit those funds to Rolling Hills Maintenance District? If not, why not? uestions from Cancelled Meeting with the Board & Councilwoman Moy (July 26,2022):
1. Resident's top concerns: The condition of our landscaping, the $410,000 loan and the $80,000 fee for NBS/CivicMic. Residents feel the city should bare these costs.
2. The main question is: "Since July 1. 1997has the ci co fled with -Paw 218 and Article X111D as required by the California Constitutions? If the answer is no, then our assessments for all these years have been invalid. This question not only applies to Rolling Hills LLMD #7, but all of Fairfield's 16 districts.
2 3. Potential Civil Lawsuit: The RHNN Board is considering a lawsuit. We've had several conference calls with one particular law firm. They have researched Fairfield's public documents and they told us on Monday, "The eity is inistaken ly1hey believe they have been operatinm under an exemption to Art. XIIID': We have another call scheduled with them early next week. If a lawsuit were to be pursued, we think it would involve all of the districts.
4. August 10 deadline: The city has a deadline for submission of all 16 FY 2022-2023 engineering reports. If the deadline is not met there will be no assessments. This could further impact the maintenance of our landscaping. What is to be done?
5. Lack of confidence in NBS/CivicMic: This contract is over $360,000 for all of the districts and is being shouldered by the taxpayers. Only a handful of residents were on the July 21 working group Zoom call. CivicMic wants to engage the residents to determine our "desired level of service". What we want is our existing landscaping maintained. Public Works and our contractors already have historic records on needed service intervals, etc. There is a disconnect with CivicMic.
6. Looking ahead; FY 2023-24 engineering reports: City analyst Chris Lewis has mentioned milestones; Dec -2022 -engineering report complete. Mar 2023 -report finalized. Apr 2023 -ballots mailed. This is not a lot of time. CivicMic's Sara Mares has Prop 218 experience.
They said, "Sara and her team are working diligently to analyze the data and provide accurate and legally defensible support for the benefit they assign". 1s Sara and her team working with the city on this now? By now, it seems we should have some idea of what this new engineering report will look like. What will happen to the maintenance of Hilborn, Lyon and Martin when Art. XIII is applied? CivicMic is not communicating with the residents regarding the FY 2023-24 report.
7) Thursday evening, Aug 18, 7pm: Rolling Hills public town hall meeting at the Realty Building. This meeting was scheduled at the request of Councilwoman Pam Bertani. Cat Moy had committed to attending.
Lastly, I will request the written transcript for the City Council Meeting on July 19, 2022. 3