The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 3 ST. LIGHTING CITY 05-4-81DATE: April 29, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CfYJNCIL DAN BLANKENSHIP, CITY ADMINISTPJ~TOR CITY ASSUMPTION OF STREET LIGHTING FUNCTION In accordance with Council's authorization last s~nLmr, the staff contacted the County and the County staff, with the Board's approval, has ~orked toward preparing street lighting within the City for transfer. For technical reasons, the lighting districts within the City are being combined into Orange County Street Lighting Maintenarlce District No. 6 (OCSLMD NO. 6) rather than the Tustin Highway Lighting District ~fnich is being phased out of existance. Attached for Council info,nation is a copy of the previous memorandums whic~ cover the reasons why the City should assume this responsibility. The key question is the financial question. The County now bas the information om the major part (80%) of the street !i~h~e~ areas ar~ expects the remaining areas to have similar profiles. The ~s__u.~_~Is that the street lighting function can be supported from tt~ property taxes within the existing area. W~ will receive the increased revenue from assessed valuation growth, within the existing district area. Any new area added to the district and provided with lights will have to agree to a user benefit ~sessment as no additional property taxes will be transferred by the County for such new service. The attached budget analysis show~ that the revenues of the district exceed expenditures under County or City operation with contingency provisions ar~ increases to the Reserve Fund. The difference in revenues of City operation as opposed to County operation is that the City will definitely get the Augmentation Funds presently being contributed to the Special District Augmentation Fun~ ($DAF) estimated at $86,000 whereas the County District staff has "requested" $~0,478 in funds from SDAF. There is no guarantee that they will receive that much or even as much as this district contributed. The differences in expenditures are that we have provided an extra $~0,000 to administrative services on a one-time basis to proviGe funding for an inventory and documentation of the syste~within the City in order to get started on a soun~ basis. Our contingency budget and increase to the Reserve Fund balance have been reduced to meet the total funds available (excluding the Reserve Fun~). In essence, if the City Council adopts the Resolution which will be su~nitted to the Council at the [~ay 18th or June 1st meeting, the Board of Supervisors will adopt a similar resolution at its June 22nd ~cting. %his will officially establish the City Council as the governing body of the district. The County will turn over the $67,342 in ~istrict reserve funds ~d the $21,~27 of Operating Funa Balance available for a total of $89,169. The City will then be entitled to receive the district's property tax related funds, interest on its reserve funds, and the amount the district would have contributed to the SDAF. The City Council then can protect and set policy for this very important function in providing safety to traffic and adjacent property. I strongly recor~nend that Council approve the.~ resolution assuming responsibility for the district when it is submitted. No action is necessary at this time. The main purpose of this memDrandLm] is to .bring you up to aate on the progress of ana a~~~~base for the new propos.ed district. DAN BLANKENSHIP, City Administrator DB:Grot ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 811 NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA FILE (714) 834-2306 APR ~ 3 1981 MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR MAILING ADDRESS: P.O- BOX 4048 SANTA ANAo CA 92702 Dan Blankenship, City Manager City of Tustin Centennial at Main Tustin, Calif. 92680 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT - Transfer of street lighting responsibility from the County of Orange to the City of Tustin Dear Mr. Blankenship: This is in regards to City of Tustin assuming street lighting responsibility from County, for street lights within Tustin city boundaries. Original plans were for your city to assume the Tustin Highway Lighting District. However, Streets and Highways Code Section 19130 states: "The board of supervisors of the county in which the lighting district has been established shall be the ex officio of the governing body of the lighting district." There is no provision in the code, applicable to Highway Lighting Districts (Sections 19000-19327), authorizing a City Council to act as the governing body. Streets and Highways Code Section 5851 does authorize the Board of Supervisors to transfer jurisdiction of a street lighting maintenance district to a city (Sections 5820 - 5856). With this knowledge we are proceeding with a new plan which would allow your city to assume Orange County Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (OCSLb~ No. 6) instead of Tustin Highway Lighting District. We are in the process of consolidating all street lights within Tustin city boundaries into OCSLMD No. 6. Lists describing the parcels and the districts involved in these transfers are attached (Attachment A) for your information. Buck Weaver is preparing draft resolutions and agenda item transmittals to submit to the Board of Supervisors for approval May 5, 1981. Inventory should be started as soon as possible; the attached list of tracts should be helpful in this area. Buck Weaver is available for questions and to assist if needed regarding inventory and maps. Dan Blankenship, City Manager Page 2 I understand Tustin City Council will meet the first and third week of June. In order to complete this transfer of OCSLMD No. 6 to Tustin this fiscal year, EMA will have to submit your City's resolution to the Board of Supervisors June 15, 1981 for hearing June 22, 1981. As shown on the attached schedule, a draft resolu- tion should be acted on by your City Council the first week in June. I will draft a resolution and forward ~t to you the last week of April for review prior to submission to your City Council the end of b~y. Attached is a copy of the proposed 1981-82 proposed budget (Attachment B) for Tustin Highway Lighting District (which will become OCSLMD No. 6) for your in- formation. This may be helpful with your budget planning. I have also prepared an analysis comparing 1980-81 to 1981-82, Attachment C, for your information. Traditionally, expenditures have been budgeted higher than what is actually expended. For example, note that last year, actual expenditures were 16% lower ($33,285) than what was budgeted (see Attachment C). If you look at the $33,285 in relation to required augmentation funding, $50,824 is the amount required over regular tax revenue instead of the $84,109; estimated contribution to augmenta- tion funds is $67,571 leaving $16,747 unspent in 80-81. Fiscal year 1981-82 budget includes a 10% contingency provision. This item is standard procedure An EMA budgeting as a protection against any emergency or catastrophe. EMA also maintains 35% of budgeted services and supplies in a reserve account. This reserve account covers the time lapse between when fiscal year expenditures be~in (July 1) and when tax revenues are received (December). Current balance ~n this interest bearing account is $67,342 which will be trans- ferred to your city. If the contingency provision of $21,145 was deleted from expenditures budgeted, then augmentation funds required would be $69,333, or, $16,667 less than contributed. It is important to remember that this budget is for the territory currently in Tustin Highway Lighting District only. There will be an additional 31 tracts from OCSLMD No's 10 and 13 which will have approximately 324 lights (rough estimate), therefore an increase to expenditures as well as revenues · Revenue projections are due from the auditor-controller the first week in May. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any factors regarding assuming administration of lighting services in your city you may contact Terrie Kelch at 834-6883. Ms. Kelch will be contacting you periodically to inform you of any new information. Also, as stated above, Buck Weaver is available to respond to questions regarding maps and inventory at 634-7019. Very truly yours, M. Storm, Director TK:dth700(35) cc: Bob Ledendecker - Director of Public Works Buck Weaver - EMA/Public Facilities Attachment B SPECIAL DISTRICTS GOVERNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1981-82 PROPOSED BUDGET FINANCING DISTRICT NA~ TUSTIN LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND N~MBER 4201 AVAILABLE FINANCING ENCUMBRANCE FORWARD INTO 80-81 ADD: 1980-81 FBA ADD: 1980-81 ESTII.~TED REVENUES (EXCLUDING CURRENT PROPERTY TAX LEVY) 1980-81 EST. CUR. PROP. TAX (A/C) LESS: 1980-81 PROVISION FOR RESERVES INCREASE LESS: 1980-81 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND YEAR-END ENCUMBRANCES EQUALS: ESTIMATED FBA AS OF 6-30-81 ADD: 1981-82 DECREASES TO FUI~ BALANCE - UNAVAILABLE FOR A) GENERAL RESERVES B) OTHER RESERVES EQUALS: ADD: 1981-82 FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE 1981-82 ESTIb~TED REVENUES (INCLUDING CURRENT PROPERTY TAX) EQUALS: 1981-82 AVAILABLE FINANCING 11,201 99,093 86,000 (5,689) (168,778) 21,827 $ 21,827 217,435 $239,262 REQUIREmeNTS EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS 1981-82 ADD: PROVISIONS FOR RESERVES (INCREASE OR NEW RESERVES) EQUALS: 1981-82 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $232,596 6,666 $239,262 TK:1c700(35) Attachment C TUSTIN HIG~AY LIGHTING DISTRICT BUDGET ANALYSIS Specialized Services Utilities Contingency Provision INCREASE TO RESERVES TOT.-kL 1980-81 Budgeted $ 6,685 177,009 18,369 $202,063 1980-81 EXPENDITURES Projected actual expend. $ 7,386 161,452 $..168 ,,778 1981-82 Budget $ 4,374 207,077 21,145 6,666 $239,262 Current Sec. Property Tax Current Unsec. Property Tax Prop. Tax prior year Augmentation funds Interest Homeowners Property Tax Relief Bus. Inventory Tax Relief TOTAL FU~ BALA~CE AVAILABLE Contribution to Augmentation Funds 74,033 6,777 8,293 84,109 15,618 4,749 2,972 $'207,752 RE*vENUE $ 69,000 7,000 1,609 75 84,109 13,300 4,000 6,000 $185,093 $ 67,571 $ 88,000 11,000 1,770 80 90,478 15,107 4,000 7,000 $217,435 21,827 $239,~,62 $ 86,000 TK:dth700(35)