Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/09/09 - Minutes - Special September 9, 2013 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES A. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council convened in the Tri-Communities Room at the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Present were Councilmembers: Bill Alexander, Marc Steinorth, Mayor Pro Tem Sam Spagnolo and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Councilmember Diane Williams arrived at 2:05 p.m. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Linda Daniels, Assistant City Manager; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic & Community Development; Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director; Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager; Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Director; Ingrid Bruce, GIS/Special Districts Manager and Debra McNay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM FOR DISCUSSION C1. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS City Manager John Gillison reported that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the landscaping and street light maintenance districts on the West side of the City. He noted that the City Council has asked for a larger strategy and indicated that this workshop has been calendared in order to have a discussion on how best to proceed in light of the structural deficits in these districts. Deputy City Manager Lori Sassoon indicated that today's meeting will outline the challenges in the west side districts, discuss the legal framework for decision-making, review the concept plan for the creation of 8 new community districts to replace the existing districts and to discuss the next steps. Mrs. Sassoon provided background information on the districts. She noted that they were key to the City's development over the years in a post Proposition 13, low property tax city. However, the Deputy City Manager reported that the passage of Proposition 218 ended the City's ability to adjust the rates incrementally over time. There is a City Council goal this year to develop a sustainability plan for all of the City's special districts. The Deputy City Manager reported that several districts no longer have sufficient funds to adequately maintain neighborhood street lights, parks, recreation facilities, and landscaping. She indicated that the total deficit is estimated at $1.2 million at the current levels of service. If an "A" level of service is needed, the estimated deficit is $3.3 million. Mrs. Sassoon addressed the formation, boundaries, number of parcels, current assessment, current level of service, current budget and structural deficit in several districts; including PD-85, LIVID 1, LIVID 3B, SLD 2 and SLD 6. Also, she addressed two districts proposed to be included in this process (LIVID 3A and LIVID 5) as they have a similar boundary. Special Meeting—City's West-Side Landscaping and Street Lighting Districts September 9, 2013—City Council Minutes—Page 1 of 3 Mrs. Sassoon commented on the legal framework in assessment districts and reported that only the "special benefit" to parcels may be assessed. Large, nearly citywide districts are not likely to pass legal muster, as there is likely too much "general benefit." In response to Mayor Michael and Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo, Mrs. Sassoon highlighted the difference between a"special" and "general" benefit to a parcel. To address this matter, the Deputy City Manager presented the concept of replacing these existing districts with eight new community districts that would provide service at the "A" level. The staff report indicated the proposed expenditure budgets and rates in these new districts. Mrs. Sassoon recommended that before any decision is made to move ahead with this concept and the Proposition 218 votes, that the City Council approve a community engagement process to determine whether or not the property owners would support this concept. Councilmember Williams inquired about the current assessments. In response, Mrs. Sassoon presented a slide containing the parcel counts in the proposed districts. She reported that some property owners are in several districts and some are not. The City Council reviewed the maps and discussed how the actual assessment varies in the community. In response to Mayor Michael, the Deputy City Manager confirmed that Zone 2 (which was not listed in the table at the bottom of Page 1 in the staff report)would have a reduced assessment rate. She stressed that the goal is to keep the rates equitable and fair throughout the entire community but noted that this is a very complex problem. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo, Mrs. Sassoon confirmed that some property owners are not included in some of the assessment districts. Therefore, these property owners are not paying anything to support the infrastructure in that particular district. In response to Councilmember Steinorth, it was noted that if this is implemented, assessments would increase for some property owners and decrease for others. Mayor Michael noted that these districts were formed before Proposition 218. While the assessments were valid at the time these districts were formed, Proposition 218 and various court decisions have adjusted the appropriate methodology. He noted that the "general benefit' is borne by the entire community through the use of the general fund. Each property owner is responsible to pay for the "special benefit'they receive. Councilmember Williams wondered how anyone would expect a property owner to pay for landscaping when there is not a single blade of grass adjacent to their property. Also, she noted that these districts should not be called landscape maintenance districts and that another designation should be found. In response, Mrs. Sassoon confirmed that other designation could be determined that would better represent the infrastructure supported by the assessment. Also, the Deputy City Manager indicated that property owners can receive "special benefits" from lighting and landscaping that is not immediately adjacent to their home. The concept of equity and fairness to all property owners was discussed. Also, Mrs. Sassoon addressed the benefits of establishing the new community districts and the strengthened fiscal accountability measures that were proposed. Lastly, she identified two alternatives, including forming a citywide community facilities district (requires an election and 2/3 support of the voters) or the reduction of expenses in each district to match the revenues received. In response to Councilmember Steinorth, Mrs. Sassoon indicated that staff had not studied forming a citywide community facilities district and a special district. She noted the difficulty in obtaining voter approval to form a citywide CFD. In conclusion, the Deputy City Manager recommended that the City Council approve a community engagement process over the next 60-90 days to determine whether or not the property owners would support replacing the current West-side districts with eight new community districts, and adjusting the assessment rates to bring maintenance to the "A" level. As the budget includes $30,000, she recommended that an additional $70,000 be appropriated for this project. In response to Councilmember Steinorth, Mrs. Sassoon indicated that the survey work would cost $100,000. City Council Minutes September 9, 2013 Special Meeting Page 3 of 3 In response to Councilmember Alexander, the Public Works Services Director reported that Red Hill Park is generally being maintained at a "B" level of service. Councilmember Alexander stressed the need to get the word out to the property owners sooner rather than later. In response to Councilmember Alexander, Mrs. Sassoon addressed how community engagement was done during the last LIVID process. She noted that a wide variety of resources were used. Councilmember Steinorth noted that the recent LIVID process barely passed; and pointed out that this is a much harder concept to share. Discussion was held. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Spagnolo, Mrs. Sassoon did not know of a City in which this was done. The Mayor Pro Tem reiterated the need to educate the community as many people do not understand government financing or what they are assessed on their property tax bill. Mayor Michael indicated that he is generally supportive of the concept. He noted; however, that he would like another special City Council meeting to review the public engagement plan before it is started. Councilmember Steinorth agreed that something needed to be done but noted that the City Council needed a deeper understanding of how the message would be delivered to the community. In response to the City Council, City Manager John Gillison indicated that part of the survey work would be to determine the message. However, he stated that a public outreach campaign could be developed for the City Council's consideration. Mr. Gillison expected that additional information could be brought back to the Council in the next 1-2 weeks. He noted that no additional funds are needed at this time and thanked the City Council for their comments. D. ADJOURNMENT Mayor L. Dennis Michael adjourned the meeting at 3:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra L. McNay, MMC Assistant City Clerk/Records Manager Approved: