Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/09/17 - Agenda Packet - Special ►•.. city of • ':: I ANLHOL,UCAMONGA AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:00 p.m. City Hall Tri-Communities Room 10500 Civic Center Drive 4 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 A. CALL TO ORDER: Al. Pledge of Allegiance A2. Roll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tern Spagnolo Council Members Alexander, Steinorth and Williams B. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC: This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Mayor and not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION: P1 C1. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS D. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra L. McNay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on September 12, 2013, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. P1 STAFF REPORT Vir ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GROUP RANCHO Date: September 17, 2013 CUCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison. City Manager From: Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services 6' Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Ingrid Bruce, Special Districts Manager Subject: OPTIONS CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE PARKS, LANDSCAPING, AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS On September 9, the City Council held a study session to discuss various options regarding the City's West-Side parks, landscaping, and street lighting districts. A copy of the staff report and maps from that meeting are attached. The Council engaged in considerable discussion regarding the fiscal challenges in these districts, the diversity among the amenities provided in various areas, the need to involve the community in discussing the options, and the importance of an intense communication effort regarding the issues. Following that discussion, staff was asked to return at a future Council meeting with an overview of the communications plan. including the themes of information that would be presented to the community. After reviewing the recommended approach and timeframes, and based on the Council's feedback at last week's meeting, we are now recommending additional time for community engagement and discussion around these important issues. Additional time will allow for a more thorough process of receiving feedback and answering questions that arise from the community. Our revised timeline would be as follows: Community Survey Determine Engagement NO Next Steps (January) Sept - Dec) (Jan - Feb) During the engagement period, the City would initiate a dialogue with property owners about their priorities for local parks, lighting and landscaping, and share information as widely as possible regarding the services provided and fiscal realities, the proposed new structure of 8 community districts, and the possible community impacts if a new structure is not approved. In January, this effort will culminate with a phone survey of property owners, and results of that survey will be presented to the Council in late January or early February. The information/education effort will be focused around several key informational themes: P2 September 17, 2013 Page 2 1. Property owners in the City generally take pride in the parks, recreational facilities, trails, street lighting, and green spaces that exist throughout the City. These are maintained by existing assessment districts even though any given area may have more or less of these amenities. These improvements would not otherwise be available in our community without the assessment districts. Keeping our neighborhoods clean, attractive, and safe helps protect neighborhood character, and access and proximity to improvements such as parks, trails or street lighting ensures that Rancho Cucamonga remains a desirable place to live and do business, which benefits all property owners, regardless of what specific improvements are in front of any given individual's property. 2. Over the past 20 years, costs to maintain local parks and street lights have increased, while assessment rates have stayed the same. Existing local funds can no longer adequately maintain the parks and lighting in all areas and the landscaping and trails in specific areas. 3. The City is considering replacing the existing districts with new community districts that fund parks, landscaping, and lighting in a given area, respectively. These new districts would have additional accountability measures for their funds, including a Citizen's Oversight Committee and separate annual audit report. 4. Before making any final decisions, we Want property owner feedback. Responses will help evaluate service reductions, needed future improvements or the consideration of a potential revenue measure in these neighborhoods for local parks, landscaping, and lighting needs. The following is a summary of the various communication methods we will plan to deploy during this effort: • An informational letter and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet will be sent to community leaders, including all the City's Board Members and Commissioners, community organizations, sports groups and other stakeholder groups. The purpose of this letter is to inform those that have many connections throughout the community, so they in turn can assist in sharing this information within their networks. The City Will also reach out through the Grapevine and other written or electronic documents, websites, email addresses, etc., to share information with the community. • Short presentations will be planned for the various boards and commissions, real estate groups, service clubs, school boards, sports groups and any others that express an interest in learning more about the West-side district issues. At these meetings we will ask residents to fill out a short one-page survey about their priorities for neighborhood park, lighting, and landscaping maintenance. • The City will seek the active assistance of the various stakeholders to use their existing communications networks to share this information (i.e., sports groups including information in parent emails, etc). • Toward the end of the engagement period, two informational mailers will be sent to property owners. These mailers will provide information but also seek community feedback regarding their priorities for parks, landscaping, and street light maintenance using a mail-back postcard. • A new web page will be developed at www.cityofrc.us/districts. This webpage will include more detailed information about the current districts and proposed new districts. P3 September 17, 2013 Page 3 • • The new web page would also include the same survey noted above, but in an online format. We will require respondents to provide an address so we can determine whether or not the respondent is a property owner in the District. • An announcement will run on the two electronic reader boards in the City, directing residents to the www.cityofrc.us/districts web page.for more information. These slides will run through the end of the engagement period. • The FAQ sheet will be made available at our libraries and community centers. • At all events and meetings, we will take sign-ups from residents who wish to be informed via email of West-side districts issues. Those residents will receive the FAQ, a link to the web page, and a link to complete the online survey. Recommendation With the revised timeline, it is recommended that the City engage in a very focused and extensive community engagement effort before the City Council determines whether or not to pursue any Prop 218 elections for these new districts. We anticipate working with the general public as well as many stakeholder groups that would be impacted, including sports groups, equestrian groups, the business community, and others that have vested interests in the West-side parks, lighting, and other amenities. In the end, this will allow property owners to make a fully informed decision regarding the options available. City staff would once again work with a firm that would help conduct this process with City staff. At the end of that time, a statistically valid survey would be conducted of property owner views regarding the implementation of maintenance reductions as compared to the establishment of the eight new districts and associated new assessment rates. The results of this survey would be presented to the City Council for review and discussion regarding next steps. If the community expresses an interest in the proposed new districts and rates, the City could initiate the Prop 218 processes in the spring of 2014 to consider rate adjustments for FY 14/15. If not, service reductions will proceed, with the knowledge that the community made an informed, educated, and reasoned decision before these cuts were implemented. With the additional time for the engagement process, our cost estimate has increased by approximately $10,000 for additional support services during this time. The cost for the public engagement work and survey is estimated at $110,000; the FY 13/14 budget includes $30,000 that is available for this effort. It is recommended that the Council appropriate an additional $80,000 from the General Fund for this public engagement project. Most of this cost is to cover informational materials and mailers that are part of the public outreach as well as the survey work at the end of the public engagement effort. P4 STAFF REPORT > ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GROUP Lai RANCHO Date: September 9, 2013 CUCAMONGA To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Service6 Bill Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director UN Ingrid Bruce, Special Districts Managefp Subject: OPTIONS CONCERNING THE CITY'S WEST-SIDE LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS RECOMMENDATION City residents have long valued the quality of Rancho Cucamonga's parks, green spaces, and facilities; these improvements are locally funded solely by the landscape assessment districts. At this time, because assessment rates have not changed since 1985 and 1993, several of the large districts on the City's west side are in financial distress, needing either revised assessment rates approved by the property owners, or further and more substantial reductions in services. These include PD 85 (Red Hill and Heritage Parks), LMD 1 (west-side parks), and SLD 2 (local street lighting), among others. Deficits currently total $1.2 million annually in these districts at the present "B" service level; if service is brought back to "A" level, the budget gap is $3.3 million. It is recommended that to protect and maintain the quality of the community, the City Council consider replacing the west side landscaping and street light districts with 8 new community districts that include parks, landscaping, and street lighting that would provide service at the "A" level. Single family assessments in the new districts would vary, but would equal roughly a $100 per year increase for most property owners over what they are currently paying. Each of these 8 replacement districts would require property owner approval under Proposition 218. The proposed expenditure budgets and rates in these new districts are summarized on the following chart: Total Annual General Benefit Special Benefit Estimated Annual Cost of (can't be funded (funded by Levy for a typical District Maintenance by assessments) assessments) SFR parcel' Bear Gulch Park $273,480 $18,323 $255,157 $103.84 Beryl Park 874,330 35,498 838,832 217.28 Gentry 149,850 28,696 121,154 36.18 Heritage Park 1,401,110 112,649 1,288,461 250.88 Hermosa and 853,860 90,595 763,265 131.88 Church Park Lions and Red Hill 1,758,770 238,665 1,520,105 135.80 Park Old Town and 469,740 31,379 438,361 120.34 Golden Oak Park South Rancho 1,057,070 204,437 852,633 67.14 Total $7,238,210 $814,522 $6,423,688 (1) Levy example is for a SFR parcel within Zone 1 of each applicable district. The SFR parcels within Zone 2 of each applicable District have a proposed reduced assessment rate. P5 September 9, 2013 Page 2 Staff recommends that before any decision is made to move ahead with this concept and Prop 218 votes, the City Council approve a community engagement process over the next 60-90 days to determine whether or not property owners would support replacing the current West-side districts with eight new community districts, and adjusting assessment rates to bring maintenance to the "A" level. The cost for the public engagement work and survey is estimated at $100,000; the FY 13/14 budget includes $30,000 that is available for this effort. It is recommended that the Council appropriate an additional $70.000 from the General Fund for this public engagement project. Map of Eight Proposed New Community Districts to Replace PD 85, et al Proposed New Community Districts e 4 4 9 1 : w -------------- ------------ i ii i i b HalPee Rdl NYtI Oe um I I a��W Non Av ' < -■Jr B.war 81� i �M �1 j BERYL PARK LMD // _•if HERMOSA _15 AND CHURCH PARK ea L,ne Rd �. ILMD �%Sem Une Hd rj /y UONS AND ��'/ I REDNLL PARK UM) Food.810 11 r. .FOUana Bl _ Mil IOW . Legend Bao,Oath Parts Iona Armr R. IAnoa 0? Deryl Pert,Zone —' PARK LMDN— Oan',Y.oMampn 2ww Mr ST MI SOUTH RANCHO'LMO I __� Ha7lope OonmunMParM Zone .1@ > —--- OdMY LMD� 50,ncnP nntl Lhuroh Park Zane 's OGOL0LDBN 70 fl \ WN OAK AN0 i !lend and End THI Fmk Zone 3 6p,. PARK LM • D _.� Old Taen and Golden OEM PIA Zore South Rnncho Pad,Zone j CIty Bounder, M .' I _ - g A BACKGROUND The formation of landscape maintenance districts (LMDs) was an integral part of the City's early years of development following incorporation. The purpose of LMDs was to act as an alternative to HOA's and enhance property values through the installation and ongoing maintenance of parks, landscaping, and other improvements in the common areas surrounding residential and commercial development. This would in turn enhance the character and quality of the neighborhoods. The LMDs finance that maintenance through property owner assessments. which means that the costs are borne by the property owners who benefit from the improvements rather than the City's General P6 September 9, 2013 Page 3 Fund. Since 1996, several of the City's LMDs, as well as street lighting districts (SLDs), have faced fiscal challenges as a result of the passage of Proposition 218. Prior to the passage of that measure, the City was able to adjust rates modestly each year if costs rose. The passage of Prop 218 meant that rates could only be adjusted upon approval of the property owners in that district. As a result, assessment rates in these older districts remained flat, while costs have slowly increased over time, especially for water and electricity. While measures have been taken to manage and control costs, the structural budget deficits that result from increasing costs and flat revenue must ultimately be addressed, either with significant reductions in maintenance expenditures, or with property owner approval of adjusted assessment rates. The City has made significant progress since 2009 in addressing these fiscal challenges in some of the City's largest assessment districts. It was recognized that these problems did not appear quickly, and they would not be solved quickly. They needed to be addressed systematically over several years' time. In three of the City's larger districts, LMD 2 (Victoria Neighborhood), LMD 4R (Terra Vista), and LMD 6R (Caryn Community) property owners have approved rate adjustments and seen service levels brought back to the "A" level. The property owners in LMD 8 (South Etiwanda) did not approve a rate increase, and so service levels were dropped significantly and landscaping removed in order to balance the budget in this very small district. In the FY 13/14 City Council goals, the Council identified the need to address the long-term fiscal sustainability of the City's special districts. To that end, following the June resolution to the challenges in LMD 2, staff has been analyzing the remaining pre-Prop 218 districts to determine which districts have the most pressing financial challenges. Adding complexity to this effort is the ever-evolving legal framework within which assessment districts must be formed and managed. Staff is now recommending that the Council look to address the structural deficits in several of the districts that serve the large western areas of the City that were developed around the time of incorporation. This area can be generally defined as the western and southern parts of the City. This large L-shaped area is served by a number of our largest and most financially challenged districts, as well as being home to two of our most popular parks, Red Hill and Heritage. After substantial time, analysis and work with assessment engineers and attorneys, it is proposed to consider replacing several of the current districts with eight (8) new community districts that would include both landscaping and lighting services for their localized areas. These new districts would provide adequate funding to protect and maintain the parks, green spaces, and street lighting that are important to community safety and quality. As we did in LMD 2, the City would first seek to share information and hold a dialogue about this concept with the property owners over the next several months, to provide and receive input from them regarding their questions, concerns and preferences. This input process will be followed with a survey to determine if property owners would support these new districts. If support seems strong, the City Council could proceed with Prop 218 ballot processes in those districts that appear viable. In those that do not, the current districts would remain in place in those areas, and staff would prepare detailed plans to reduce maintenance levels and eliminate improvements in those areas in order to live within available resources. The analysis below provides more details as to the fiscal challenges in these specific districts, and the reasons behind the recommended approach. Staff is well aware that both the financial realities and the proposed solutions are very significant changes, and will require a great deal of effort and communication with residents and businesses in order to build a consensus as to the best outcomes. The community values its premier status, and our parks, trails, and green spaces are P7 September 9, 2013 Page 4 much of what makes this City a desirable place to live and raise a family. As was seen in the planned communities to the east, when offered the opportunity, property owners have generally chosen to adjust their assessments modestly to protect and maintain their quality community amenities. Current Analysis The following is a summary of the current assessment districts that would be phased out if this plan is pursued and approved by property owners. PD (Park District) 85 — PD 85 represents the most immediate financial challenge. This district was originally established to fund the construction of Red Hill and Heritage Parks, funding both debt service on the original bonds as well as ongoing maintenance of the parks. This district contains approximately 28,000 parcels and encompasses all of the City, except everything east of the Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria, Caryn, and Terra Vista planned communities. The PD 85 bonds were paid off in 2005, and the assessments were reduced at that time from $52 to $31 per single family or multi-family units. Rates for commercial and industrial properties vary. Other than the rate reduction in 2005, rates have not changed since they were originally established in 1985, which was 28 years ago. Red Hill and Heritage are two of the City's premier parks, covering a total of 82 acres and providing a large variety of amenities and recreational opportunities for the community. Maintenance services are currently at the "B" level, as staff has sought to manage costs in these large and busy parks. Maintenance levels have been reduced, capital improvements and repairs have been deferred, recycled water has been implemented at Red Hill Park, and turf areas under trees have been replaced with mulch, all in an effort to reduce expenditures. The condition of the parks is certainly showing the adverse impacts of this deferred and reduced maintenance. The district's structural budget deficit is projected to total $520,000 this fiscal year, or roughly 30% of the total $1.7 million expenditure budget. Reserves in PD 85 have been declining rapidly as a result of this situation; while the District had $2.5 million in reserves in 2008, remaining reserves are projected to be approximately $500,000 by the end of this fiscal year. It should be noted that if services were restored to "A" level without an increase in assessment rates, this deficit would be even greater. LMD 1 — LMD 1 has nearly the same boundary as PD 85, assessing 18,000 parcels and encompassing nearly all of the area that is not located within the City's planned communities. Not all parcels within this boundary are currently annexed into this district or contiguous, making it unlike the City's other LMDs, which typically include all parcels within their boundaries. The excluded parcels were residential parcels that developed prior to the City's incorporation. LMD 1 provides for the maintenance of 10 parks, as well as community trails, parkways, trails, and medians in this area. The parks in this district are Bear Gulch, East and West Beryl, Old Town, Church Street, Golden Oaks, Hermosa, and Lions parks. The assessment rates of $92.21 per single family and $46.11 per multi-family unit have stayed the same since 1993. Service is at the "B" level and maintenance services have been reduced in order to reduce the budget deficit. The district's structural budget deficit is projected to total $220,000 this year, or roughly 15% of the total $1.4 million expenditure budget. Reserves are nearly exhausted, with $215,000 projected to remain in reserves as of the end of this fiscal year. LMD 3b — LMD 3b is another large district that nearly mirrors the boundaries of PD 85 and LMD 1, but encompasses approximately 1,100 commercial and industrial parcels within this large boundary. P8 September 9, 2013 Page 5 This district funds the maintenance of 557,000 square feet of landscaped medians and hardscape in these areas as well as the entry monuments along 4th Street. The assessment rate of $352.80 per acre has been in place since 1993. The district's structural budget deficit is projected to total $148,000 this year, or roughly 13% of the total $1.1 million expenditure budget. Remaining reserves are projected to total $440,000 as of the end of this fiscal year. SLD (Street Lighting District) 2 — SLD 2 is the next large district that again shares nearly the same boundaries as the districts listed above, covering the areas of the City that are generally west of Haven Avenue and south of Foothill Boulevard. This district funds the maintenance of the streetlights and traffic signals on the local streets found within these areas, with 8,700 parcels included in the district. The assessment rate of $39.97 per single-family or multi-family unit has remained the same since 1993. This district currently provides only enough revenue to fund 50% of its expenditures, making it the district with the largest structural budget deficit. As an interim measure, $320,000 per year in expenses are being charged directly to Gas Tax Funds, which is a permissible use of these funds. As was discussed with the City Council in a study session in early 2012, staff does not recommend the ongoing subsidy of street lighting districts with Gas Tax, as this reduces the funds available for pavement repair and replacement. SLD 6 — SLD 6 is another district with largely similar boundaries as those above, but maintains the streetlights and traffic signals serving the commercial and industrial areas. Approximately 1,000 commercial/industrial parcels within this large boundary are included in SLD 6. The assessment rate of$51.40 per acre has been'in place since 1993. Relative to the other districts discussed thus far, the budget for SLD 6 is more modest, totally $118,000 annually, and the district does not have a structural deficit. However, given its overlapping boundaries with other districts serving commercial and industrial properties, it is recommended that this district also be replaced with the new districts to streamline district administration and provide a simplified assessment structure for the affected property owners. LMD 3A/LMD 5 - In addition to the large districts listed above that have nearly the same boundaries, there are two small LMDs that staff would recommend phasing out as a clean-up matter during this process. LMD 3A maintains the parkway in front of an industrial complex on Hyssop, just south of 6th Street and east of the 1-15 freeway; it contains only 9 parcels and has a budget of $40,270 annually. LMD 5 maintains a small tot lot in a 44-parcel residential development near Hermosa and 26th Street, with a budget of $5,330 annually. These very small districts can be dissolved into the new 8 districts as part of this initiative, if it is approved. The total deficit shared by the districts above, at current "B: service levels, totals $1.2 million for FY 13/14. If services were restored to the "A" level in all the deficit-position districts, the deficit would total $3.3 million. Proposed Neighborhood Districts As previously noted, the large, nearly citywide districts were originally established prior to Proposition 218 and in a different era with regard to assessment district law. Going forward, new and revised districts must meet different standards with regard to how the benefits provided by the "improvements", meaning the parks, street lights, etc., must be quantified and then separated in terms of special benefit to various parcels, and general benefit to the public as a whole. This is a key concept, because Article XIIID of the California Constitution allows the City to recover from assessments only the proportionate share of the costs of the improvements that provide the special P9 September 9, 2013 Page 6 benefits. General benefits cannot be funded by the assessments; they must be paid for by other sources. As was learned in the LMD 2 experience, new districts will no longer fund 100% of the improvements within their boundaries; there will always be some sort of general benefit component, typically funded by the General Fund, fees, or other sources. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a new, citywide assessment district would pass legal muster. The proposed new West-side district plan would establish eight new community districts to replace the districts listed above. The boundaries have been developed so as to minimize the amount of general benefit created in each district; this has generally been done by locating the districts around the parks that are served by these communities, looking to the City's General Plan for guidance as to optimal distances to parks and park amenities. To determine these district boundaries and their proposed assessment rates, Public Works Services staff worked to develop budgets for each of these new districts, assuming that services were to be restored to the "A" level, including modest contributions to district reserves. The proposed expenditure budgets and rates in these new districts are summarized on the following chart: Total Annual General Benefit Special Benefit Estimated Annual Cost of (can't be funded (funded by Levy for a typical District Maintenance by assessments) assessments) SFR parcel' Bear Gulch Park $273,480 $18,323 $255,157 $103.84 Beryl Park 874,330 35,498 838,832 217.28 Gentry 149,850 28,696 121,154 36.18 Heritage Park 1,401,110 112,649 1,288,461 250.88 Hermosa and 853,860 90,595 763,265 131.88 Church Park —Lions and Red Hill 1,758,770 238,665 1,520,105 135.80 Park Old Town and 469,740 31,379 438,361 120.34 Golden Oak Park South Rancho 1,057,070 204,437 852,633 67.14 Total $7,238,210 $814,522 $6,423,688 (2) Levy example is for a SFR parcel within Zone 1 of each applicable district. The SFR parcels within Zone 2 of each applicable District have a proposed reduced assessment rate. The increased costs to property owners would vary across each of these districts if they were approved, depending upon each specific parcel. In 6 of the 8 new districts, virtually all property owners are paying into one or more of the existing districts that would be replaced. The exceptions are in the South Rancho (81% already in a district) and Gentry (67% already in a district). While there is a great deal. of variation between specific parcels, for most residents rates would be increased by approximately $100 per year as compared to what they are currently paying, with increases higher in the new Heritage Park district. It important to note that overall rates will be much lower than are currently found in the planned communities, where single family rates in the LMDs range from $290 — $460 per home per year, not including their SLD assessments, which are additional amounts. Each of these new districts will be subject to its own Proposition 218 ballot process for property owner approval before it could be established. Property owners would have the opportunity to cast ballots that are weighted in dollars based on their relative proportion of the overall assessments to be imposed. If a majority of the ballot weight cast is in favor of the new assessment, the City P10 September 9, 2013 Page 7 Council can create the new district; if a majority protest exists, the new district is not formed. If this plan is implemented, as the new districts are approved, the new districts replace the underlying old districts within the "footprint" of the new district boundaries. Property owners are no longer assessed the prior rates and are instead assessed the new community district rate for their property. If all eight districts are ultimately approved, the underlying districts would be completely dissolved. If not, the remaining portions of those underlying districts would remain in place where the property owners have not approved new districts. If that were to occur, staff would proceed to implement service reductions needed to achieve balanced budgets in those remaining areas. That would likely mean very significant impacts in the parks, medians, and street lighting budgets. Alternatives Given the legal framework in which assessment districts must be formulated and managed, the City's options for different assessment district structures are largely limited. Staff did explore the option of creating a new Community Facilities District (CFD), which could be formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. CFDs are legally distinct from assessment districts and provide more flexibility with regard to how rates are structured; they also do not require that general and special benefits be determined. So, it would be legally possible to form a single large CFD rather than the 8 community assessment districts, and generate the needed revenues. In the CFD scenario, the single family rate would be approximately $115 — $130 per year per single family home. There would also be no general benefit contribution required by the General Fund, which is an additional benefit to the City's budget. However, approval of a CFD requires a 2/3 vote of registered voters in a special election. It is staff's opinion that a CFD measure is unlikely to reach the 2/3 vote threshold required for passage. For that reason, we do not recommend pursuing the CFD option. At this time, the remaining and perhaps least desirable alternative would be to reduce maintenance further to achieve a balanced budget in each of the current districts. With deficits ranging from 15 — 50% even at current, reduced service levels, this would be a tremendous challenge and inevitably result in very detrimental impacts to the conditions of the parks, trails, and even street lighting systems. Rather than focus on those potential negative outcomes, it is recommended that the City first engage with the community to discuss the positive opportunities that exist in creating new community districts, focusing on the need to protect and maintain the community's quality of life and preserving public safety. Recommendation As was done in LMD 2, staff is recommending that the City engage in a very focused and extensive community engagement effort before the City Council determines whether or not to pursue any Prop 218 elections for these new districts. We anticipate working with the many stakeholder groups that would be impacted, including sports groups, equestrian groups, the business community, and others that have vested interests in the West-side parks, lighting, and other amenities. It is anticipated that this engagement project will use many of the same methodologies that were used in LMD 2, including mailers, meetings at stakeholder groups, and opportunities for residents to provide their feedback. In the end, this will allow property owners to make a fully informed decision regarding the options available. City staff would once again work with a firm that would help conduct this process with City staff. It is anticipated that this community engagement effort would take place over the next 60-90 days. At the end of that time, a statistically valid survey would be conducted of property owner views regarding the implementation of maintenance reductions as compared to the establishment of the P11 September 9, 2013 Page 8 eight new districts and associated new assessment rates. The results of this survey would be presented to the City Council in late 2013 for review and discussion regarding next steps. If the community expresses support for the proposed new districts and rates, the City could initiate the Prop 218 processes in the spring of 2014 to consider rate adjustments for FY 14/15. If not, service reductions will proceed, with the knowledge that the community made an informed, educated, and reasoned decision before these cuts were implemented. The cost for the public engagement work and survey is estimated at $100,000; the FY 13/14 budget includes $30,000 that is available for this effort. It is recommended that the Council appropriate an additional $70,000 from the General Fund for this public engagement project. Attachments Maps of existing LMDs and SLDs Detailed map of Proposed Districts P12 CC "" p 'i a) O p co .` ca ii... 0 J '0 IL ny�(JJay0 0 1•••1 Q tr) M : Sm., 8 W G) �i �� J m E _ a) tE 0 i °D o pitii ny lSe� in i ,/w = - L_ Q = jny epuen■43 ny epuemal2 ImIlitsih Ct X18 ){a9-10 ea 1 ny)alsayooa ny Jalsayoo� F' i ,. AV uaVII!W ny uaVll!W ny uaneH Ay uaneH Ay esowaaH ny eSOWJaH AV Pleq!yPy ny Pleq!yoiy ny uewllaH ny ueWllGH w L L e ny pJnau!n 2S ue!lauJe3 cc _ ny ana0 ;agar it 67 c m EC U) 1a§: § Z ii t a L J = 3 L `iii iis8-a 3 r e a's cc c CO u_ . I i°az a 70 c c7) ca CO o I IIilliY, tiaio i' 2.12A/ild ( ;6..4).1:!, ( 41401 P13 ' .1 C.) w Cl) Q J o 0 CI CD V Z - o Z Q'• W U cn �;� ny f�JJaU0 J 'tir `�� O Z ,u—u—n—u—• \�' -0 " _ cc CtS I m H C1 ny lSe� in QV i jny epuenn!33 ny epuennu Ctf `J i 1II 11 PIA 1`- A :` i 19 )1aaJ O ep _L _ p ••■ ny Ja}sayao� I ny Jalsayaoel t" i ny ua�{!ll!W �.._..—.._..�..���; ny ua�{!II!W - rAll n ny uaneH y uaneH I ny esowJaH ny esowJa AV Pleq!ya�y ny pleq!yaly fly uewllaH ny uewllaH ( L_ e AV PJnau!A is ue!laweo !ItI!IIIIIH fY AV anoJ0 I' 3r 1 CC c o p€ ° fu) 0 Q €a sa ,; aR al t lifil t a 3 is43'gai ��a�� =r 9111 Y s • •4 j •J a 1tdi1 it 3di€s's P14 Q ._ AV 1puurn-og M1 1 "Y A..44j lad !• • '` i'4,.. ' ••1 0•• .. al • o ,v tr.wr iiipridgli AY..J..43 CO J C7'")-4.'6 mturi CO.._.. 11rni1II1 ° , ..w IN . ■NU U W J.., a) r i , . , . w 0.,,,,. _. • III III f't•" N I eft. W i CL RS V C. 1 Z J d .zQ doss 16) __■11111LO Ay Ja4saclao)j U AV ua)jtlltlA- fir .:. I . P15 m M N a) .....V T 0) y J °° . M 4 ci o,Z :C 2 ® O W U v i> N �'i i Ay tiaa43 J am . o C %r *Ma CC iiiiirr- :31 E — .174 Ay;se3 rn CIS i v Clg my epuemg3 ny epuemg3 C i RI J ■ i 18 �!aa.,0 rep ,' ny Ja;sayooi " D ny as}sayooa r" A Ua 11 f"�"�"�"�" ' I A ua I I y VII.W . 40- y �I.II.IN ny uaneH ny uaneH ny esoullaH ny esowJ -1 1_-el 1 Ay Pleq!goN At/Pleq!4oJy ny uewllaH ny uewlla j (/) L Ay paeAau!n Is ue!lauJeo 111111;11!ii i!1 i i b i1 Cl) as m in Ay enoJe €' a 9,, MM c -.iii: ° iz a U) co o Q ill,° f 3 c co L.L. t a£P $ as' N n3 i38 CO 73 c .1[1411W; 1,—'.124311;10 I V Faa4kUea35i P16 LC) V a N rLLH. z....,, •t..: vfi E7' :, Q z .„r... = U 04 i Ilyl��ll�l _Y. 1■� ■■■ 7■ r-L. ' o 11.4 • iiiiiitiA■■ 111.. J .,.' s.. /, CD 1(14C-\()INIV • V AV 1SO111.1OH P17 in N 4.1 V �' 'i r .....ti) E J 0 N ❑ C� Q CD C.) W O U? «- O 0 r••1 En W Z O L. to t O CD ii ny�(��ayO J cL c� ! j` a) C c +.+ ii' _c 3 0 0 1111M111 , Ay Ise lho i v nn Ay epue CD m l�� y epueMl1� L Oat X19 {aa)0 e4 1' ny Jalsayoo8 - ny aalsayooH r" i ,, m a i l r•—• n u a y �.IIW �_I y �IIIW 0 Ay uaneH ny uaneH ny esowJaH ny esouaJaH r."-.111 AV Pleglyo�d ny Pleglyoay ny uewllaH ny uewllaH ( - r v ny pJenauln as uellawe3 111111;1110 Ps 't!ii� `! '} aa !-a ny 0A0.19 1;11111z1!11 cc U) C _ L- U) t V ;319S'ai L J = 3 la S la � N Og i� a CO C7) as-o CC c as u_ 1.1100.i.1. = En 1111; _ "ice 5)2111pa ••• as d SSS .•• a:a, 11 ,38: P18 co o C) =' •} E ▪CO 0 O J a) 0 C A W 0 0 O 0 R= a C.9 r••, •,,42 r&r- CC -+ i N + _ o 2 I \\ U- Q J i ....,14 ny 2Se2 v) CD i v G) my epuennu ny epuennu i Cr) i Ilk' i �aaJO e4 1 ■■ ■► jib AV aalsayoo ny Ja;s3yoo6 fr._I i IPA AyUa I I ,.._.._.. .._. n ua I I y �_liw . •r,� y �. .w Ay uaneH Ay uaneH AV esoWJaH ny eSOWuaH AV PlegILPV AV Pleq!y3Jy ny uewmlaH rn ny ueW OH L y v cD Ay pJe/auIA IS ueilaweo 5 =" =f 1 ;1:10341 CE AV anole i=; .i:, l L J = 3 L f'412' 1;i14 CD CD L 2 eO ;s9i1 1;"ptt i O paat tli ca Lai` -p Jt c i� i w c13 _ g ;v{ sga IilifT P19 U C J O N y -> }+ m c Y � I o N c S cL _ N �c m Q N m N W , o u d o N o N Z' v X E U o L N 0 O ICO cc N V .D E L m ,I 13 N y N v W O 'O O Z` o I ^ 11,\ C CO' m C7 x x J O �i U o co 0 � m 4 m I co g o LL Q I mak 73 I 1 I a.) AV epueM!3 i a ^y epuennu I -J J CI O r \_ _• ■ z CC w L ^ 1 C7 - � - - \ N....... . / AV ialsaUaoa L _t\\A....._.______1 O ,,,,s. ----- 12 -AVANG11141*- I o--------- p1 ua,i,IiVI i 1 0 1 \ I a a 0 0 I 2z1El ?y c ._.a_. ■ I C4 Q Vc J ■ U O Y cy r.W W'.I'i-V I— —� �.� ` Z O 'V Gle'7'u"uy re .I =J < 0. �I 3wY 1 w >. 00K 0oa CC mp —�—0•i i- ny uewl:aH AV ue1.IIi�H T� _ I = 2 O o �'F Cri I 1 aQ aY ,f. ct CL CZ Cr Z J/ w a ny pieteuln U J 0 -.° 1, . J CC \ __ i ..,---1.- E I .—"---, 1 ,,e I' 1...s. i I �' CO °o ¢ :•li1i CC T • ;11:`6,1: v C :I'i j1 S �, V � -• BEAR GULCH PARK ZONE --_ 7 �, .• 4.4 I�' -,..- ; si::k.�; , - c SAN BENITO A{Ig D I ;. J Alf m o ' • ..iflr�?.. 0 „_=;_,714-,. .�.. .. 1 '1/' �IIN Rillie _- - (.• r� �,1 ! •1 r. , li _ _ ,,,� i' ,m„` 7,■ il ....- A 1-11;•-..-3a-4# ,e. \.� '- �. e; +. , ceivlRR LN r.f; t 1. yt��i!i F'• se 10 r- _ \ . f.'-2 .. s 1 I �_i r v AMt'iHYST AVE Y trll•- + 1- i 1 - . - CHELSEA CT A•E! 1.N' N.,•'' • � ■111 r..ti 1 Z 1 �: :- 1 •� 2 <- . y -/•.,• - .* t �A- f )(HILL 11, /O. .� . / .Z r "v-J -y STONEY MILL DR - .. - - _ - - �'IiJlfa Iii.s. .l Ill ;Lit r ..1- _ - __• 1 I.1 'll 1 BEAR GULCH '� ' lilt time (1 r • �,RI 11,11:,I,1 I c .47/ . �`V , EIEMENTPRV CANISTEL A y} r T _ ��� �1�� ■ - 'cif Z _ D C f 1 fir. '9N1 i_ r$ - ' • .WOOOV4ARO e�! ``i ❑ --1 _ <D . > . 7 z-RI *� ��+�+ = IIr ;11 1 11r (a.�I,I7i 4 N ,. KN LWOOD DR _ ` ■ ,Iw I 't m Z G '�_ -. X11!11! .11% a •4":–. t S i 1'1� 1"1 RgAV kolit c, . 1' > • r 1 1 m�' 'e D , 0 -. 111.11 ai�5,i L' _1i 1111.1A10,t1 ��a . APO/0/%100D OR it,„``� •1 _ - L. ..� I�. - - O BCD D •1 D - KOI •11''/1411111�r • 1,I1I13 . N, — •, m D D• f '- •r --••. KONOCTI ST< < - •GRAND OARS CT' 'dl ❑ w m CCO7 m -� , 1.. '^ O .- I = CANE VEJ'AR' o Iti ' .4 A 1 3 1: ,�. �! rc LAVA D � !'• `.�1 '4 _ t D ."IA�ILLVIEW"LOOP 'A U I \ tl m ►' L' m J , :4 1 4 .`1. • 'Cucamonga,Sc ooI J I gilit- 0- u, h 1 - 1 X41(+ V. Ii•N u 1 •� ! A .1 1� �. 1 , I we' 14 ." .i+ a RICHWOOD Dot 1• la' :— .- 1 " - MI ■ ;f; 1 '� _ . suwti+1111 _ �I a• i a sz s, :;r� 1 _ 9TH sT øij•.t t `` _t c' t Tij . 9 lir'''. - 1 ilpl 's'• '/_ y�, �� I1>A .-.fl i. _ JERSEY @L ��, _ -F, ....yam •-+�.i ■1 •.`` 1 lull. '-, v� 1 �• .1,.'-'7' L • .:.. \N\ . y 3■. 1 1 ! y li Ir 1 ii � , ti F�., r>» 1 . si YI • �I - -� ityw. w4', Legend ,., 1' •1 • r 91#1! ,,...1• ' 1 1 1.-ii 1 `,yam R .i' +I - i;. \' 1.,2:3 9 -• _ +TT_E �T..� 17 �-`+`TT—n .i i ,4 ■\ \1. e3,,,,.s C 1 Er ••'II+r r' •(1 ..'f - ■ tR 1__:i - -1 .i' -1 `-•••`•.'••••••'' ,:n1. I .,<,..... -it,..„. „. . , . . .. ..._ ,,.._. .: L... ...., . , .. -= h. 7, jr, .r- -s- •ii - 1�4, ~ , i - . 7`,, .•' 1 {#----4.R _ f.4 i _ i �. __„mar __...'_,_,. Bear Gulch #of parcels proposed to be levied 1,051 #of parcels currently levied 1,046 #of parcels currently not levied 6 #of parcels no longer levied 1 %of parcels currently levied 99.52% %of parcels currently not levied 0.57% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Commercial/Industrial 72 $ 48,808 Multi Family Residential 3 $ 19,972 Single Family Residential 264 $ 19,375 Other 343 $ 3,008 #of parcels with increased levy amount 682 $ 91,164 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $177,614 %of weighted total proposed assessment 69.60% total current levy amount of increased parcels $86,451 Breakdown of Proposed Increase per Parcel Category $3,008 3% $19,375 UCommercial/Industrial 21% 4110 in Multi Family Residential : ::Sinl Family Residential Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Condominium Residential 196 $ (7,475) Multi Family Residential 8 $ (16,947) Single Family Residential 159 $ (9,435) Undeveloped 7 $ (1,843) # of parcels with decreased amount 370 $ (35,701) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $77,563 % of weighted total proposed assessment 30.40% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $113,264 Breakdown of Proposed Decrease per Parcel Category $(1,843)-5% U 5(9,435 , Residential -26% U Multi Family Residential u Single Family Residential 0 Undeveloped Sit Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Commercial/Industrial 72 $ 81,495 Condominium Residential 529 $ 43,944 Multi Family Residential 11 $ 84,360 Single Family Residential 423 $ 44,132 Other 16 $ 1,247 Total 1,051 $ 255,178 Proposed Assessment by Parcel Category $1,247 1%_ $44,132 17% u Commercial/Industrial II Condominium Residential N Multi Family Residential $84,360 k IR Single Family Residential • 33% u Other $43,944 17% fad. a 4,..+ a.-a. •11.. i i t N - y� •b nrg•a ` f 1 Q .1 li Ne ,w 7C'ra r,..�' :4.1 _ d ... is I ♦ r`!;'�?rR^'tl Ml 4� 1' •• - F y r} '.i �,r.itl>' r .6 d Q. rte. ,> .• } # i • "hhhn. ,.FO,t r J 8 m = �3�3 J -;Vii `�a %lJj ,; .. �I ,�7 'a'j . .... ? • " :'... �k ( ^/ ......._4......,,,.4,..= .. : *: y s . Fi •r-• ;".r-•r ` ' ,( _ 0 1 a� ,,,,-x'QI HT.,, ._4,Ii ,i li r. J` r 3.., 1a: ir.r H ;x:- 'f 1r M'?""">■ t. ��.-ti11j = ` ; I: . . F a L . 1. I i 3 L ■j ; iL ;•1 _ 1' ,,,,„..„,z.4.11,441.' 1 ' r ' 1 `1 � I 1 I r I �d91-11„.,...:_ _ 'r iL. [ < -- i _s i t i `I i t. -I __ .. . r . , ............... ' • .h ^141.•F i,, ,'1 1. - F t Y Y` '.1 y1s I p. .. I . : .�; - - Is t. t All L , J - 1 +.- • ,•j: - l a. •1 ,.., Goa j' . 1, .. r_..'. • • •.1 } - •i: j .: ice, . :°ip') • , J l A IIJIIi I'1 fI,III'L�I: Beryl #of parcels proposed to be levied 3,611 #of parcels currently levied 3,597 #of parcels currently not levied 15 #of parcels no longer levied 1 %of parcels currently levied 99.61% %of parcels currently not levied 0.42% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1:Single Family Residential 1,718 $ 273,257 Zone 1:Other 4 $ 1,319 Zone 2:Commercial/Industrial 16 $ 18,021 Zone 2:Condominium Residential 393 $ 31,884 Zone 2:Single Family Residential 1,451 $ 139,277 Zone 2:Other 21 $ 5,236 #of parcels with increased levy amount 3,603 $ 468,994 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $837,548 %of weighted total proposed assessment 99.84% total current levy amount of increased parcels $368,553 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $5,236 1% Zone 1:Single Family Residential 39,27 •Zone 1:Other Ii Zone 2:Commercial/Industrial W ane 2:Condominium Residential o Zone 2:Single Family Residential $31,884 7% oZone 2:Other $18,0214% $1,319 0% Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Public Service Parcels-Church/Fire Station/School 1 $ (1,971) Zone 1: Undeveloped 2 $ (7) Zone 2: Commercial/Industrial 1 $ (25) Zone 2: Public Service Parcels-Church/Fire Station/School 2 $ (888) Zone 2: Other 3 $ (32) #of parcels with decreased amount 9 $ (2,923) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $1,315 of weighted total proposed assessment 0.16% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $4,239 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $(32)-1% oZone 1:Public Service Parcels- Church/Fire Station/School YZone 1:Undeveloped hi Zone 2:Commercial/Industrial YZone 2:Public Service Parcels- $(25)-1% Church/Fire Station/School $(7)0% id Zone 2:Other Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Commercial/Industrial 17 $ 23,521 Condominium Residential 393 $ 63,434 Multi Family Residential 8 $ 81,350 Public Service Parcels-Church/Fire Station/School 11 $ 4,288 Single Family Residential 3,169 $ 666,041 Undeveloped 13 $ 229 Total 3,611 $ 838,863 Proposed Assessment by Parcel Category $229 0% $23,521 3% $63,434 8% oCommercial/Industrial $81,350 10% YCondominium Residential $4,288 0% Iii Multi Family Residential II Public Service Parcels- Church/Fire Station/School USingle Family Residential $666,041 79% 0 Undeveloped - 1 GENTRY LMD ZONE o..�sxw..., a'µ.o.w9>amssan_ ',y t ti [ ki1 _ ,* r1 m rN A'z R - ITw, \ 1' '\1119■ f•ta `7 • 0r1.-,.61. ;:f i r' �.: • a 1 'a � Y �i'' is r A MEW 9 yr'/ C a • r. ��1na ? ° fl©-1 rict 7 s I a , ;�. . - ,111` _,i _ _ - a _ Mr - y i1t t., ,� . jt - . . , ® , 1 _ ` l --.. ii . ,e; I , ' • I t •__ ' , g } I-. I t� w G3 &i1f 'a .1 Lea-� — — {R.,,,_,,,,�,r ��]�t-: ? +. _ ,. _ F /r ti..iaao' t -11 r• M f �l 1 �/J/� !i i' I IAN,VA RIA1411 0,47 , k 'Jr III ;� , r,.,, - / f . y •. I is Is VI:. �p�h - ,; l�_ , n , J om ! out. ,A��1.,,ilr., i,„ 1 . .' �- 1 a = JJJ .„ West * i. 4": , . ��r� Coast IPCI)C a 4 VP � Liquidators i M ' u n i. • ., pt i jL Don Gentry LND Parcel! - �— u 1 , - Zones 111 J i 6 _ Elp , ; NAME 4 i I F a- C3.............0..., : f. C5 Faws School Dunn i i Gentry #of parcels proposed to be levied 323 #of parcels currently levied 199 #of parcels currently not levied 127 #of parcels no longer levied 3 %of parcels currently levied 61.61% %of parcels currently not levied 39.32% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Industrial 38 $ 10,090 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 1 $ 7,120 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 132 $ 4,259 Zone 2: Industrial 24 $ 24,244 Other 9 $ 2,624 #of parcels with increased levy amount 204 $ 48,337 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $54,474 %of weighted total proposed assessment 44.99% total current levy amount of increased parcels $6,138 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $2,624 5% oil, ::::1 1:Multi Family Residential IA Zone 1:Single Family Residential : ::r2 Industrial $4,259 9% Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Industrial 29 ($7,254) Zone 1: Other 9 ($620) Zone 2: Commercial 22 $ (31,533) Zone 2: Industrial 35 $ (86,885) Zone 2: Multi Family Residential 1 $ (16,112) Zone 2: Public Service Parcel 1 $ (12,018) Zone 2: Other 25 $ (1,309) U of parcels with decreased amount 122 $ (155,732) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $66,594 %of weighted total proposed assessment 55.01% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $222,326 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $(12,018) -8% $(1,309)-1% ($7,254)-5% F___($620)0% $(16,112-10% ilk $(31,533) •Zone 1:Industrial -20% •Zone 1:Other oZone 2:Commercial •Zone 2:Industrial II Zone 2:Multi Family Residential o Zone 2:Public Service Parcel $(86,885) Li Zone 2:Other -56% I Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Commercial 1 $ 82 Zone 1: Industrial 67 $ 19,656 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 1 $ 7,120 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 133 $ 4,884 Zone 1: Undeveloped 7 $ 37 Zone 2: Commercial 23 $ 14,291 Zone 2: Industrial 59 $ 68,134 Zone 2: Multi Family Residential 1 $ 3,256 Zone 2: Public Service Parcel 3 $ 1,951 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 11 $ 314 Zone 2: Undeveloped 17 $ 1,344 Total 323 $ 121,069 Weighted Ballot Breakdown $314,0% $1,951 2%=1I344 1% $82 0% _ $19,656 ozone 1:Commercial $3,256 3% 16% •Zone 1:Industrial �.- HZone 1:Multi Family Residential $7,120 6% /�� •Zone 1:Single Family Residential o zone 1:Undeveloped $4,884 4% uZone 2:Commercial $68,134 $37 0% UZone 2:Industrial 56% •Zone 2:Multi Family Residential 14,291 12% baZone 2:Public Service Parcel UZone 2:Single Family Residential id Zone 2:Undeveloped 9 . 1• N U r k te *.r' --�. .'� ,°r•s _ mE . cL a • V Z � ' ' I c:I ' ) •- , I•I ,;7•7:.' 4-.. ;' r1 fr"q k Y f rr i i .. 1 „ri +! l 4 ? 4'�'' I -rte O • +'-i' ' I k j { . W • • (7i• {, Q s- , ur.--' 1 -•'1■q '1'. -" S` - - i -°- -- , - r• yyJ, _ — 1 r �; ...-ryi: -„ ...',:a tti _ f I. - ' / 11 • t C-- -"4.!!'''''....c,- .r . ttr ♦ .c a .1.* -r j'Vi t A , • eJ. a . , A. 1_— _______I__"7'.'” a . e t4 ti''1t� "- r• a. 3 r N �N !11 ~Y - ti I .. It'as ± ' Sc�I t r .-.d r �}• ,0. -j1r Sb..t 4••= '''' ♦ ttrlff`}4 : t a.4_ t _ _ - • 111 e.. •t ,.>. M I f,-.... } , lc ', h �+ l'I, x{+. aataY+�+}� f F ..7 + � 1.° 'XL . 4ti „,,,!..1.1. e, lY ,L ,•3 y3 -7,.' 4 t ."17 t _ ...L... F• aL rev 1 t ` ::�k,+ .a 11, • r 4yM: e• • 1 y-1...7, • \ r N- �t s., rtkf; -'�' x ` i. IIgP'Irkl ki.Ejrj! ,�. _6” �. . ry ` i_�;•f 3'�t 1111111(1!:! ;;� -� rl/r,�+� 1 ` - llllh I yc .19.1 ,-...11, ` It +Viii`IIII #5i> Heritage #of parcels proposed to be levied 5,285 #of parcels currently levied 5,263 #of parcels currently not levied 22 #of parcels no longer levied 0 %of parcels currently levied 99.58% %of parcels currently not levied 0.42% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School 4 $ 1,411 Zone 1:Single Family Residential 3,479 $ 613,152 Zone 1: Undeveloped 49 $ 8,156 Zone 2: Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School 4 $ 13,232 Zone 2:Single Family Residential 1,637 $ 147,396 Zone 2: Undeveloped 8 $ 344 #of parcels with increased levy amount 5,181 $ 783,689 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $1,283,505 %of weighted total proposed assessment 99.63% total current levy amount of increased parcels $499,816 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $344 0% r$1,411 0% OZone 1:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School $13,232 2% ■Zone 1:Single Family Residential $8,156 1% Zone 1:Undeveloped ■Zone 2:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School El Zone 2:Single Family Residential oZone 2:Undeveloped Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 1 ($350.50) Zone 1: Single Family Residential 3 ($370.75) Zone 1: Undeveloped 39 ($3,534.59) Zone 2: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 2 ($3,313.67) Zone 2: Single Family Residential 2 $ (45) Zone 2: Undeveloped 57 $ (7,595) #of parcels with decreased amount 104 $ (15,209) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $4,744 % of weighted total proposed assessment 0.37% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $19,953 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category ($350.50)-2% ($370.75)-1% ■Zone 1:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School ■Zone 1:Single Family Residential IA Zone 1:Undeveloped •Zone 2:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School o Zone 2:Single Family Residential $(7,595)-50% oZone 2:Undeveloped $(45) 0% Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 5 $ 1,488 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 3,482 $ 874,568 Zone 1: Undeveloped 88 $ 14,179 Zone 2: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 6 $ 13,863 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 1,639 $ 381,821 Zone 2: Undeveloped 65 $ 2,330 Total 5,285 $ 1,288,249 Weighted Ballot Breakdown $2,330 0% $1,488 0% •Zone 1:Public Services•Church/Fire Station/School •Zone 1:Single Family Residential $381,821 30% ca Zone 1:Undeveloped •Zone 2:Public Services-Church/Fire $13,863 1% Station/School $14,179 1% •Zone 2:Single Family Residential U Zone 2:Undeveloped $874,568 68% ,.. .7.a. r• . •iaLic7�"iii�i%IIa'1 ;5 ->,�Zill� �-.r, -- •r = -' HERMOSA AND CHURCH PARK ZONE 4- si,a.. .., /s..,. .j . r } e° WNW!, o'g• p I tit r'' � i • I 210;• • � •� r:a' ' _ - a , a�5+ , i • *., rl.� l a '�. - 14 R r��I� l •+ ' r `•IS -+ 1 a « .,, . h`• •• I 9: ., P • :. err . - *� ..,..r. - 2 •# - �� DEER CANYON a ,' _ i l - �:,...-m., ELEMENTARY r' - _ ,.,, ,a,� . +- Vial Yili ''°1-.. Mi•u.w • Vr.,n-, r ., s ,� ; - n• • '`'-.7-r.,., 6.. } f a ' - .. a kir o 4.4ill-i f 1 ,7 • • ` rh;tAir•�jt1L®':'N� 44'1...x14.-4-"; i! - ' r } - • s•. .1.0101: °1' "I 1 15 1 1194'* -q y '� Ta i`f 'Err 11/1+,1 N's''q.°, 1 t� .y. ._• . li ! 6�'o-via rd ,- e ,"rN11 tit q, ili1•G,"n[ C :Fa a MN1 I.U; iI:Z ••a.n _ ' .I ,,ti1 IR1 l7 min ay.l 41511U 1, •aa a1 t 1 - ' ,iags. ,uqu_ ntr 5M1 as l.11 p1:a/*.dill Ade a Uaf•es -I Iae.mY ' Iaraiaq •ii: 1 M /Ia1M "WI as •Mir JAI 1a OM'O w•«.v.. �r .; .innt.s a 11 1. i Y i'yO�ak it l• 1 .:•• 1i. E C :i ii,r' r A ( tic, 1$,1a fA(1 Yqi. .• ;;a a ,`5 'f i t i-.t. i n'/ Iil' .11M1•Mr1 1 c r- �C11� I1 _ iii ry. 0.4 r i i -'_ lwip;It'.nr�1�1+1,Nyi. cM1lt11W1. .1, a °'°. n• I•--1'q.JU •1 .. i�P?1 .'ai' ' .-<aba.." •. J f1.111'Di (�11*'ye'uat1S,F41 .•r q:. .• ? .+ 1•wd, , I wr! it r. 1W aru-!•ii! +c%� .. , ., • S - a• ;_ .. 't p•, 5ti rr.n�. !_.i,r `i e'•r . ,..., .,•'Al L r )° ? K ? !ere. .,., s lr,i 1_• t f. 17 11111 err. .nx as ! a.,,... • • - - a 'i'ii • l.itl 1_ of ..>" •- . - :. o J y.'• DONA MERCED _ ki,�, • • _ ' ELEMENTARY r ad '� _�. - e /•s', 1;' •' e 17 i "• � 4/5la -_.. . 1.E. • • } C�itr[d0 ,, i9tw' 0.• +• s' ! t ' . - ,...�:{ .aur .- .. . ` t n.n(- < d , via:i • I '.. (II .x CENTRAL s ; ,1 Ni t Legend••.dor. • ELEMENTARY • s - •y - - ` q,i� Hermosa and Churl/I:1' nurcn Park Zone ..-f.' 1 3. -..,•x • o- `1 f 11.4. ft, — ; Hermosa and Chruch Park Parcels �, [ as c 4 1 Zones flit 4, 01 • _ a..f. • .k.. it c� o w.. r{ a '%2 L [ice 11 4• `r I 1 ,r..0. • • • . '.. f 1 ' • l ,- Hermosa and.nurcn Parks NAME ' , I IA " - 1 tl2 • 1. M12W jai°- W A rta Loma School asNd ` }i J l ■ a_' - - 1 - Central Ednool osV,n . a/m.y 1 EMU a t Yea• .^ : 1 ‘40 Hermosa and Church #of parcels proposed to be levied 4,858 #of parcels currently levied 4,845 #of parcels currently not levied 64 #of parcels no longer levied 0 %of parcels currently levied 99.73% %of parcels currently not levied 1.32% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Commercial 64 $ 35,460 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 610 $ 17,318 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 14 $ 51,898 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 2,678 $ 246,138 Zone 1: Other 27 $ 5,153 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 188 $ 17,194 Zone 2: Other 7 $ 1,345 #of parcels with increased levy amount 3,588 $ 374,507 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $586,403 %of weighted total proposed assessment 76.82% total current levy amount of increased parcels $211,896 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $17,194 5% $1,345 0% $35,460 9% $5,153 1%. I $17,318 5% $51,898 14% :::::1:Comerci 1:Condominium Residential V Zone 1:Multi Family Residential ■Zone 1:Single Family Residential NI Zone 1:Other o Zone 2:Single Family Residential U Zone 2:Other $246,138 66% Proposed Decrease in Annual levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Commercial 1 ($143.86) Zone 1: Condominium Residential 127 ($1,476.79) Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 5 ($7,126.78) Zone 1: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 5 ($2,111.10) Zone 1: Single Family Residential 392 $ (12,270) Zone 1: Undeveloped 9 $ (363) Zone 2: Single Family Residential 731 $ (22,252) #of parcels with decreased amount 1,270 $ (45,743) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $176,966 of weighted total proposed assessment 23.18% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $222,709 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category ($1,476.79)-3% ($143.86)0% ($7,126.78) AZone 1:Commercial -17% YZone 1:Condominium Residential ($2,111.10) Iii Zone 1:Multi Family Residential (11(14 ® -5% 49% •Zone 1:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School $(12,270) la Zone 1:Single Family Residential 27% o Zone 1:Undeveloped $(363)-1% LI Zone 2:Single Family Residential Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Public Services - Church/Fire Station/School 5 $ 1,488 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 3,482 $ 874,568 Zone 1: Undeveloped 88 $ 14,179 Zone 2: Public Services- Church/Fire Station/School 6 $ 13,863 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 1,639 $ 381,821 Zone 2: Undeveloped 65 $ 2,330 Total 5,285 $ 1,288,249 Weighted Ballot Breakdown $2,330 0% 0% $381,821 30% •Zone 1:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School •Zone 1:Single Family Residential •Zone 1:Undeveloped •Zone 2:Public Services-Church/Fire $13,863 1% Station/School $14,179 1% •Zone 2:Single Family Residential o Zone 2:Undeveloped $874,568 68% LI ONS AND RED HILL PARK,�� � • � � s ,.. -• '.` l r.:4 1 r = i• .fir ., ` .} _ • •-t•x 9 _ y c -nrii:J` �..... R�sr '1,s- ;+ja _ .,�( - --1•� . e _ .... ,.t ...4:1t.- t r+ a Alta Loma or , 1 r ' School 7 - District _ — �E .1 .'4 a /y j * ..:1;)1 { ) ^ti •u.. tw • - 2.. ;r yalil I'M MI I bb ,,,�, s a- S :it• r - ` �. - 1 . . 2 J: t�I ,l�s la 1J ti J,S • ..",..;.`:„14 t= .• r 'y' ,. '0,--i... 1 .0 ,. � r \\ 1 s t ' t .;M 1 :. �e �a'7 ;yam. 0 wa• �I t. • �� ...+... - K.. wry :..� l� r 'i£ r :7: 4 iid,i s .' ' ' I es 5:1. ', WM...', • t • ' .:lLlJ EIEMEM.Vn' 'v • �.w. . . .,.1„,. ..t. ,--.., .•2- i •,,, • 4: r l M i . 0 III 1 . 4. Central • F : 4 School s '� 4 ° - e i - q ' 0 ' - ' _Distric , � � . ® rP If III, ...,,. ,_ `\ 1 ..1.�s' .. - '.`'I:: r • e _ o• r: 1 _i re 1 ° x:0 tr. �-: .,s : �1 .... '_Cucamonga iT `i r. w nit School 6 i,y.Y r It II I f>� I h District b ifil t w[, F •!i.Y6-�• bn•and Red HI. . Paresis• Y.:" Y '47.• .rte 3 :I"! 7',i `. V j 1x-1 n— 1 ii;F-T.'-'41a.?T '�� �� C:S�„ •,w.w w.o.A:a. ■ lit S r y r ti ti Ile i ;1 ..� = - - .I . cd,�Weed o.w 9 r [ A': t o s +r r 1� Cs v t i 1 Nr ".4- aN ifG ak Lions and Red Hill Scenario #of parcels proposed to be levied 8,581 #of parcels currently levied 8,259 #of parcels currently not levied 64 #of parcels no longer levied 12 % of parcels currently levied 96.25% %of parcels currently not levied 0.75% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Commercial 168 $ 92,543 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 658 $ 35,656 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 102 $ 95,089 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 5,065 $ 536,465 Zone 1: Other 63 $ 10,371 Zone 2: Industrial 89 $ 73,922 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 578 $ 52,131 Zone 2: Other 378 $ 36,725 #of parcels with increased levy amount 7,101 $ 932,902 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $1,323,319 %of weighted total proposed assessment 87.07% total current levy amount of increased parcels $390,417 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $52,1316% $36,725 4% $92,543 10% ----.-------\$73,922 8% $35,656,4% ■Zone 1:Commercial $10,371 1% YZone 1:Condominium Residential $95089 10% YZone 1:Multi Family Residential Iii Zone 1:Single Family Residential O Zone 1:Other YZone 2:Industrial ozone 2:Single Family Residential o zone 2:Other $536,465 57% Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Commercial 4 ($4,655) Zone 1: Condominium Residential 418 ($4,386) Zone 1: Exempt 11 ($2,511) Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 3 $ (11,306) Zone 1: Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School 8 $ (5,969) Zone 1: Single Family Residential 743 $ (20,449) Zone 1: Undeveloped 106 $ (4,788) Zone 2: Condominium Residential 87 $ (1,409) Zone 2: Single Family Residential 87 $ (3,226) Zone 2: Undeveloped 12 $ (2,433) Zone 2: Other 13 $ (1,069) #of parcels with decreased amount 1,492 $ (62,203) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $196,478 %of weighted total proposed assessment 12.93% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $258,681 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $(2,433)-4% )-2% ($4,655)-7% 'V--------_____ one 1:Commercial $(3,226)-5% ($4,386)-7% •Zone 1:Condominium Residential $(1,409)-2% / ($2,511) 'Zone 1:Exempt -4% Zone ▪ 1:Multi Family Residential $(4,788)-8% ozone 1:Public Services-Church/Fire Station/School ozone 1:Single Family Residential ,$(20,449) 'Zone 1:Undeveloped 33% $(11,306) 'Zone 2:Condominium Residential -18% w Zone 2:Single Family Residential $(5,969)-10% 'zone 2:Undeveloped Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Commercial 172 $ 128,094 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 1,076 $ 116,897 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 105 $ 204,270 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 5,808 $ 798,911 Zone 1: Other 177 $ 15,162 Zone 2: Condominium Residential 425 $ 42,874 Zone 2: Industrial 100 $ 90,378 Zone 2: Single Family Residential 665 $ 84,739 Zone 2: Other 53 $ 38,472 Total 8,581 $ 1,519,797 Weighted Ballot Breakdown $84,739 6% $38,472 2% $128,094 8% $90,378 6% 116,897 8% $ •Zone 1:Commercial $42,874 3% •Zone 1:Condominium Residential $15,162 "Zone 1:Multi Family Residential 1% 04,27 •Zone 1:Single Family Residential "Zone 1:Other "Zone 2:Condominium Residential YZone 2:Industrial "Zone 2:Single Family Residential id Zone 2:Other $798,911, till, T.1,. ;, �_ ' °.3 i. - OLD TOWN AND GOLDEN OAK PARK ZONE • l '. I ' pie*, alo■. - -forri 6 .. .' . t , � e,- ,. I✓ �w.i7an.r ' t ` a y'E ' j/�+r 4 r" _ -- � . r / 1 N. 1 it II 1 i Nis , ii I, 1,110;',-,, ilas . , ... .,,,IIIL-. --mi.: „,ii_gton. P •II'+ 1 ,� - ELEMENTARY - £ - ��.- ' Yt1• 0 -. ■w• 211 4D i L ik �"■IF 11 1 ....u.,K -,� , , • n. �i,.= �. w: l i.- x a g ■ _i I r i I ! RANCHOCUCAMONGA - �r 1 - �,,i `I MIDDLE SCHOOL 'r. r n , +, etet� .ti: . ar c -, = t I.:.,X1.61 .4• s►e s_ba l:0 .a"..< _a,:,_, ‘.... . . ....N _ _rte . �_- u.-ui r.-e ' t . ... : MIL ^C.1 . , , . :. - ••-•,. ,+~. =1 j, •ti ua,k e ' + w M' '- I : I tnei.t . F,' fp,"-�,jp ,. .. �1.. .{ . •. .W eI' , -. , :14 "" �., a .I �.� .. ant:. Ra • �. . •,. .,442,11, . Fro .Ii814i .;6rM,t,AEri7 'C•"•f .I ! _-Y�. f f ,'�"..•., 4 W1/4„„, , ..'_ �, w Ir 1 all.i' ' • a' IJ�I. rle .i AB ,Pee-.1,,, '.u„,...a `r i,1 i!fl •+`/'111 i'ti:.:.!1 + Ti 'a- -. •ai ,f ;r: . :4 •-1�as�=:'Z�:'��=9 s, of+f• ' , � rA�,+wr } . + "le N 64' S `...� �-1 ,, 'A ti ,a;141'...•l i, l .1■t')1:, l I a r3 J ` ,MK I S ie•wa w •- I• ,:I �' .„r Twe`�rt y ,a°,e(';•I b• i �. >• !S■ �r n,w , k _ �•e lass yr jrJli lr ,,, ... ritaa:�y� ,. 4 =!.f_ 1.41 vtat! , ,-. 1x,)1' .,.4,,,,, ,1,? nr1 S �`+ . ny'�i -1. ,g' t +e f}•.N W• ..(P,.i+ s s• 1, a I,II,� .1,4 -..� ar.i,,t It'ol7■ *' d@,ii;er1i.ii._■'■ �" ,40,;,'',....6; +'.i i.) 1i)1 I■ f7l 7 " ..�` I[ ,F. ,r 111110'� t I , '-y. �t '_ - n �i�. T4 I t - _ - R ,,, i — � t : !' It a,11 - r % 'r J !74a 1'1 a I Wit.- , 4 • _ ,'. . _'• 1' ._ ? -1 1, Legend �yCucamonga School Datnct N , i 'TS/ r- W old Tow+and Golden Oak Pah, r. I ' w—• "•� • e3 Okl Town and Golden Oak Palk Zone _, . aJ• A. "'i,Y. ;.4 '`'•'. 'n Zones _. • '! !.�9Ir �aa ory - - - ' —1'.tilt + . ppiW4y: • wia of ' I! SY Old Town and Golden Oak #of parcels proposed to be levied 2,441 #of parcels currently levied 2,425 #of parcels currently not levied 18 #of parcels no longer levied 2 %of parcels currently levied 99.34% %of parcels currently not levied 0.74% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Commercial 34 $ 34,311 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 278 $ 5,357 Zone 1: Industrial 70 $ 45,996 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 1,020 $ 85,806 Zone 1: Other 20 $ 3,682 Zone 2: Industrial 4 $ 8,331 Zone 2: Other 8 $ 1,244 #of parcels with increased levy amount 1,434 $ 184,728 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $330,488 %of weighted total proposed assessment 75.42% total current levy amount of increased parcels $145,760 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $3,682 $8,331 4% $1,244 1% 2% $34,311,19% •Zone 1:Commercial $5,357 •Zone 1:Condominium Residential 3% fi2one 1:Industrial •Zone 1:Single Family Residential 5,99: AZone 1:Other 25. IoZone 2:Industrial V Zone 2:Other $85,806 46% Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Condominium Residential 78 ($1,623) Zone 1: Single Family Residential 780 $ (19,383) Zone 1: Undeveloped 88 $ (2,453) Zone 1: Other 60 $ (844) Zone 2: Undeveloped 5 $ (3,909) #of parcels with decreased amount 1,011 $ (28,213) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $107,707 %of weighted total proposed assessment 24.58% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $135,920 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $(3,909)-14%I ($1,623)-6% $(844)-3% $(2,453) :::::1\ 1:Single family Residential V Zone 1:Undeveloped •Zone 1:Other $(19,383) U Zone 2:Undeveloped -69% Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Commercial 34 $ 54,880 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 356 $ 34,272 Zone 1: Industrial 124 $ 99,611 Zone 1: Single Family Residential 1,800 $ 221,907 Zone 1: Other 112 13,214 Zone 2: Commercial 3 $ 4,511 Zone 2: Industrial 4 $ 9,096 Zone 2: Other 8 $ 704 Total 2,441 $ 438,195 $704 0% Weighted Ballot Breakdown $4,511 1% $9,096 2% $54,880, 12% $13,214 3% --� II Zone 1:Commercial $34,272 8% •Zone 1:Condominium Residential oZone 1:Industrial •Zone 1:Single Family Residential U Zone 1:Other $99,611 23% 11 Zone 2:Commercial oZone 2:Industrial o Zone 2:Other $221,907 51% III _ 1 W ' �. O tr 1 . . w Le -_1 �. ,. a S _ vF -... _ s r S @ a Z '_?' 1. _ F3I € 888 > '�' }' _ • — • I g , ,, I 1 _ `fi moo. k 0 I . + a-+s i = i lie f g Q. r 11111k, f. - - el.-�1 9 .10 wit. Milli r ;1� ... -11 1 w 1t "_ '-I j .- t `r y I 1111 Ng • rk 4, i . :::.;.‘, NMI P. MP ' I i I i "�1► lt•■ �; a -t m v `� w_ a ri ,. .. f • 1 64 ...... ...pt.] �1. / ' 441 7 :.a )Ya V _.-x!10'. y �1 1jj1;ill-7i ;, I II ��•4 gyp. V e• 41'11 5l'AP4 .f.. .1 1,IN wic - , .- + „7„,.:� !. . . ,. �� fw 1_ - 0. u., -a.CIIBI' Ii' �'.' i+'.`) , .� _ )�M1�— - 'sf a s+ II +y' ._ �, ..�_ �1' '.:C.''.-,,{ , i .I..I 41 1 Ii C � 1 0o i IC re 11 ■ { 9y`� it ..N - l�� _iq>' � L,_._. • _ .• i . t-. 1 11 II p , s_I,_ . ;,s'1' 11 ``�It L..111$:. 1 r i' + , i' iin Ir l Y . - I i+ t I ... _ �•',III II .` �! F� t. 1 M I S "II,�ir!,1 .E IAN;aiij ,III --, { . , 1 -, -�rl�, �� "'Jr- =iii yrrliii' _ 411,111 ---: T - :- a; - — I�1 r. ` - South Rancho #of parcels proposed to be levied 2,235 #of parcels currently levied 1,785 #of parcels currently not levied 453 #of parcels no longer levied 3 %of parcels currently levied 79.87% %of parcels currently not levied 20.27% Proposed Increase in Annual Levy Parcels Increase Zone 1: Commercial 84 $ 15,116 Zone 1: Condominium Residential 415 $ 22,266 Zone 1: Industrial 75 $ 83,661 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 8 $ 4,921 Zone 1: Other 79 $ 2,718 Zone 2: Commercial 75 $ 15,184 Zone 2: Industrial 100 $ 26,416 Zone 2: Multi Family Residential 5 $ 4,078 Zone 2: Other 21 $ 2,076 #of parcels with increased levy amount 862 $ 176,435 total proposed levy amount of increased parcels $223,935 %of weighted total proposed assessment 26.25% total current levy amount of increased parcels $47,499 $4,078 Proposed Increase in Annual Levy by Parcel Category 2% $2,076 1% $15,116 9% $26,416 15% UZone 1:Commercial $22,266 13% •Zone 1:Condominium Residential oZone 1:Industrial $15,184 9% •Zone 1:Multi Family Residential oZone 1:Other $2,718 1% "'Zone 2:Commercial $4,921 3% $83,661. III Zone 2:Industrial 4790 Zone 2:Multi Family Residential Zone 2:Other Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy Parcels Decrease Zone 1: Commercial 105 ($53,163) Zone 1: Industrial 193 ($33,417) Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 7 ($79,254) Zone 1: Other 440 $ (32,682) Zone 2: Commercial 144 $ (40,104) Zone 2: Exempt 3 $ (100,486) Zone 2: Industrial 126 $ (77,916) Zone 2: Other 358 $ (55,774) #of parcels with decreased amount 1,376 $ (472,796) total proposed levy amount of decreased parcels $629,055 %of weighted total proposed assessment 73.75% total current levy amount of decreased parcels $1,101,851 Proposed Decrease in Annual Levy by Parcel Category $(55,774) -12% ($53,163) -11% O Zone 1:Commercial ($33,417) -7% ■Zone 1:Industrial $(77,916 V Zone 1:Multi Family Residential -16% ($79,254) -17% •Zone 1:Other o Zone 2:Commercial u Zone 2:Exempt o Zone 2:Industrial $(32,682) -7% UZone2:Other $(40,104) -7% Weighted Ballot Breakdown Parcels Assessment Zone 1: Commercial 172 $ 157,278 Zone 1:Condominium Residential 1,076 $ 143,528 Zone 1: Multi Family Residential 105 $ 250,811 Zone 1:Single Family Residential 5,808 $ 980,931 Zone 1:Other 177 $ 18,616 Zone 2: Condominium Residential 425 $ 52,641 Zone 2: Industrial 100 $ 110,969 Zone 2:Single Family Residential 665 $ 104,046 Zone 2:Other 53 $ 47,237 Total 8,581 $ 1,866,056 $104,046 Weighted Ballot Breakdown 6% 47,237 2% I $157,278 8% i $110,969 6% oZone 1:Commercial $143,528 8% $52,641 3% YZone 1:Condominium Residential 1 $18,616 1% oZone 1:Multi Family Residential $250,811 YZone 1:Single Family Residential illt1/1, 13% oZone 1:Other i Zone 2:Condominium Residential 1 Zone 2:Industrial id Zone 2:Single Family Residential $980,931,53% Zone 2:Other MEMORANDUM 1%, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GROUP RANCHO Date: September 17, 2013 CUCAMONGA To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Subject: COSTS AND RATE IMPACTS OF ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN WEST-SIDE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS At our September 9 workshop, there was some discussion regarding funds for additional improvements in the West-side parks and landscaped areas. During our analysis, a second option was developed for the Red Hill/Lions Park District that would have provided an additional $400,000 annually to address the deferred capital improvements that are needed, particularly in Red Hill Park. The chart below compares the two budgets that were developed: Option 1 Option 2 Estimated costs $ 1,683,770 $ 2,083,770 Replacement costs 75,000 75,000 Total District Costs 1,758,770 2,158,770 General Benefit Contribution (13.57%) (238,665) (292,945) Net Total to be Assessed $ 1,520,105 $ 1,865,825 The following chart shows the impact on assessment rates. The Option 2 scenario results in an assessment rate that is 23% higher: Parcel Land Use Category Option 1 Option 2 Single-Family-Zone 1 $ 135.80 $ 166.74 Single-Family- Zone 2 126.10 154.83 Condo Residential -Zone 1 108.64 133.39 Condo Residential -Zone 2 100.88 123.86 Multi-Family-Zone 1 81.48 100.04 Multi-Family- Zone 2 75.66 92.90 Commercial/Industrial 645.05 792.02 Public Service Parcels 36.38 44.66 Undeveloped 28.13 34.54 Similar options would result in similar rate impacts if applied to the other proposed districts. In summary, it is technically feasible to increase proposed assessment rates to provide additional funds for capital improvements and other investments in the districts, but there is a corresponding impact on assessment rates.