Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.4 City Street Lighting Prgram • 32.0- 33 CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE : February 14 , 1983 SUBJECT City Street Lighting Program EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Exhibits A - E RECOMMENDATION : 1) Authorize commencement of assessment district formation. 7c-?cl < 2 ) Authorize Staff to retain legal counsel for district formation. 3 ) Determine if street lighting system should be upgraded. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See below DESCRIPTION Prior to incorporation, all street lighting in Dublin, with the exception of traffic safety lighting at intersections, was included in the County Service Area. Upon incorporation, the City ' s street lighting system was automatically removed from the County Service Area. Since this removal would require the City to pay for street lighting with City funds, the City requested, and the County subsequently approved, annexation of the City ' s street lighting system to the County Service Area. On September 27, 1982 , the City Council tabled consideration of a local assessment district versus City assumption of all street lighting costs until the mid-year financial forecast was completed in January. As you know, Staff did present the mid-year financial forecast in January. That report projected healthy City reserves at the end of fiscal year 1982-83 , but also recognized that estimated expenditures did not include capital improvements . Subsequent to the presentation of the financial forecast, the City was notified by the Dublin San Ramon Services District that the City would be responsible for sewage treatment plant expansion costs provided for by agreement between the County and DSRSD amounting to approximately one half million dollars. Although these costs would eventually be recoverable, there is no question that the City' s cash position would be significantly impacted at the time in which payment is required. In order for the City to have sufficient time to form an assessment district for street lighting, it is necessary for the City Council to address as soon as possible whether the formation of such a district is more desirable than directly assuming the costs for street lighting. In order to facilitate this decision, the City Engineer has prepared updated costs of operating and maintaining the existing system, additional lights and assessment district formation costs . COPIES TO: Steve Casaleggio ITEM NO. U�' AGENDA STATEMENT: City Street Lighting Program Page 2 As shown in Exhibit A, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining street lighting (excluding safety lighting) which will be in place on July 1, 1983 for Fiscal Year 1983-84 will be $130 , 000 . For Fiscal Year 1982-83 the County had estimated street lighting costs for Dublin at $85, 100 . This increase is due to an increase in the number of lights and an increase in PG&E rates . Financing of these costs at present is accomplished by assessing property owners . The present rate for an occupied single family dwelling is $16 . 14 per year. As you know, the County indicated that this rate was somewhat higher than other areas due to inclusion of a factor for additional street lights . The County has further indicated that those unexpended funds in the City of Dublin' s account will be returned to the City when it leaves the County Service Area. These funds could be used to offset rate increases, for additional lights, or the cost of assessment district formation. Staff does not know at this time what funds will be left in the City ' s account for July 1, 1983 . With respect to adding street lights for the purpose of upgrading the City' s street lighting system, last year Alameda County and PG&E staff reviewed the lighting levels within the City of Dublin and recommended upgrading of street lighting coverage to accepted industry standards . These standards are used by the City for all new subdivisions . These standards are also followed by Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton. The standard basically provides for lights spaced from 200 to 250 feet. Most of the proposed upgrading could be accomplished by installing lights on existing power poles . In some of the residential areas , additional poles would be required, and overhead connection would be required over the street. This upgrade would involve the addition of 251 residential lights and 61 commercial lights . The City would pay only the maintenance and energy costs estimated at $40 , 235 . No capital cost would be incurred (See Exhibit B) . The County and PG&E also recommended the addition of 41 lights in the commercial area which would require new poles, conduit, wiring, transformers and undergrounding. The energy and maintenance costs for these lights is estimated at $7 ,714 per year. In addition, the City would be required to pay capital cost totaling $193 , 400 (See Exhibit B) . With respect to the issue of upgrading the existing street lighting system, it is important to consider that presently all residential property owners are paying the same assessment for street lighting whether or not their street has any street lighting. Alternatives There are two basic funding alternatives available to the City for financing street lighting. The first alternative is that the City pays directly for all street lighting costs once the City leaves the County Service Area. Depending upon whether or not the City wishes to upgrade the street lighting system, the impact on the City' s 1983-84 budget would range from $130, 000 to $371,349 . This alternative would reduce the funds available to undertake capital improvement projects . AGENDA STATEMENT: City Street Lighting Program Page 3 The second alternative involves the formation of an assessment district under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 . If the City Council chooses this vehicle for funding street lights , it would cost the City approximately $30, 000 in the first year to set up the district, and approximately $2 , 000 to $3 , 000 each year thereafter to administer the district. The set-up costs for the first year include legal, posting, engineering, reproduction and administrative work. Upon recommendation of the City Attorney, Staff has contacted the law firm of Jones, Hall, Hill and White which specializes in assessment district formation. Mr. Steve Casaleggio of that firm has developed a tentative time schedule for the formation of a street lighting assessment district for the City (See Exhibit C) . Mr. Casaleggio has also informed the City that a ruling by a California Court of Appeals has clouded the use of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 as well as other assessment district techniques . The Court ruled that maintenance assessments under the City of San Jose Charter violated Articles XIII A and B of the State Constitution because they constituted ad valoren taxes . Mr. Casaleggio has indicated that the Court of Appeals that issued the ruling late last year wants to rehear the case, and will likely do so during the month of February. His recommendation is that if the City is going to form an assessment district, it do so now, so that if the Court reverses its earlier ruling, the City will be in a position to have its assessment district ready to operate for fiscal year 1983-84 . If the Court does not reverse itself, the ruling will be appealed, and the City could still continue operation of its assessment district. However, the City does risk the cost of formation, if the eventual outcome of the appeal is that the Court of Appeal ' s ruling stands . If. the City Council chooses to form the assessment district, there are a number of funding variations which the Council could consider, including subsidizing the district. Some of these options are shown in Exhibit D . Conclusion In summary, the City Council needs to address the following issues: 1 . Should the City assume the cost of street lighting? a. Advantage - Property owners would no longer have to pay an. annual street lighting assessment. b. Disadvantage - City will have less funds to undertake capital improvements, especially as energy costs escalate in future years . 2 . Should the City form an assessment district to fund street lighting? a. Advantage - City would have an on-going means of defraying costs from the General Fund as street lighting costs increase. City would have more available funds for capital improvement projects . b . Disadvantage - Property owners would continue to pay street lighting assessment. City would be out the $30, 000 required to set up the district, if the California Court of Appeals ruling stands . AGENDA STATEMENT: City Street Lighting Program Page 4 3 . Under either street lighting funding alternative, should the City upgrade the City' s existing street lighting system? If so, to what extent? a. Advantage - Property owners would receive more equitable street lighting services . Traffic safety and public safety in those areas which presently have no street lights would be improved. b. Disadvantage - Either the City or property owners would incur greater costs . 4 . Should the City request to be permitted to remain in the County Service Area until the present litigation is resolved? a. Advantage - City would not risk the $30 , 000 assessment district formation. b. Disadvantage - Should the case drag on for an extended period of time, the County would continue to retain control over the City ' s street lighting system. Further, additional cases may be filed on questioning the use of assessment district. Recommendation In view of the issues above, it is Staff ' s recommendation that the City proceed with the formation of an assessment district for street lighting, and authorize Staff to retain legal counsel to commence district formation. Staff bases this recommendation on the anticipated need for substantial street improvements in the future in order to handle anticipated growth in traffic generated by nearby communities . If, over the next several years , the City ' s financial condition is such that street lighting costs can be assumed by the City and capital needs can still be met, the district could be dissolved. With respect to the upgrading of street lighting, it is recommended that the City Council determine which, if any, of the additional street lighting areas identified in Exhibit B it wishes to upgrade. If the City Council wishes to upgrade the system, it should also determine to what extent the City should subsidize, if any, the district. EXHIBIT A STREET LIGHTING COSTS EXCLUDING SAFETY LIGHTING* P G & E OWNED AND MAINTAINED Existing lighting system 808 lights = $106 , 345/year as of July 1982 @ January 1, 1983 rates Estimated lights to be added 100 lights = $ 17 , 719/year between July, 1982 & July, 1983 (Subdivisions under construction) Sub total $124 , 064/year Assume 10o increase in rate January 1, 1983 (Ave = 5% for year) 6, 203 908 lights $130 , 267/year $130 , 000 * Signal top lighting, major intersection lighting and crosswalk lighting EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHTING COSTS (EXCLUDING SAFETY LIGHTING) UPGRADE LIGHTING LEVELS I . Residential • Upgrade to 0 . 2 average foot candle and 6 : 1 uniformity add 251 lights $31, 646/year II . Commercial ( areas of non capital costs ) Upgrade to 3 :1 uniformity A) Amador Valley Blvd (west of Village Parkway) add 36 lights on existing poles $ 5, 069/year \‘\ B) Dublin Boulevard ( ° 1 add 5 lights on existing poles $ 704/year - \- � C) Village Parkway (north of Dublin Blvd) l; W\''' / add 20 lights on existing poles $ 2 , 816/year "g�8 Total $ 8 , 589/year AIII . Commercial (capital costs for new poles ) new lights at 6 : 1 `\ uniformity `,/ A) Regional Street ti add 11 lights (energy/maintenance) $ 2 , 070/year capital costs $53 , 600 B) Dublin Boulevard A .') B) add 1 light (energy/maintenance) $ 188/year ,�`5 capital costs $ 1, 500 /�‘' C) Golden Gate Drive ., add 6 lights (energy/maintenance) $ 1, 129/year capital costs $28 , 600 D) Amador Plaza Road ti0! add 9 lights (energy/maintenance) $ 1, 693/year �-,1,�, capital costs $46, 400 t ?,, E) Village Parkway (north of Dublin Blvd) �"Tkjvo add 1 light (energy/maintenance) $ 188/year 3e capital costs $ 1, 500 ✓i ��1� F) Village Parkway ( south of Dublin Blvd) ���`�),0 add 9 lights ( energy/maintenance) $ 1, 693/year c\, wy;1� capital costs $40 , 400 ,; G) Amador Valley Blvd (east of Village Parkway) . i add 4 lights (energy/maintenance) $ 753/year b� capital costs $21, 400 •,,\,:a Total Energy/Maintenance $ 7 , 714 a Total Capital Costs $193 , 400 ').- ,0 Total Additional Lights = 41 ax, EXHIBIT C CITY OF DUBLIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE TENTATIVE TIME SCHEDULE WHAT WHO WHEN 1 . First City council Meeting; City Council with 2nd meeting adopt Resolution Initiating Resolution supplied February, 1983 Proceedings for Formation of by Legal Counsel Maintenance Assessment District 2 . Obtain approval of boundaries Legal Counsel 1st or 2nd of proposed district by County with Engineer meeting Surveyor and Assessor March,1983 3 . Prepare Engineer ' s Report Engineer with After 1 above showing proposed district Legal Counsel and amounts of assessments 4 . Engineer files Report with Engineer When completed City Clerk May 2nd 5 . Second Council Meeting adopt City Council with 1st meeting Resolution Preliminarily Resolution supplied May, 1983 approving Engineer' s Report by Legal Counsel and Declaring Intention to Form Maintenance Assessment District, etc . 6 . Give notice of public hearing City Clerk and Immediately by publication and posting Enginer with forms after 5 above (publish twice, 1st time not and direction from later than 10 days prior to Legal Counsel mtg, 2nd posting minimum of 5 days after 1st posting) 7 . Third Council Meeting conduct City Council with 1st meeting public hearing and adopt Resolution supplied June, 1983 Resolution Approving Engineer' s by Legal Counsel Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, etc . 8 . File Diagram and Assessment City Clerk with By July 1, 1983 with County Auditor Engineer 9 . Collect Assessments County of Alameda on Due on tax bill November 1983 tax bill Legal Counsel - Jones Hall Hill & White Engineer - City engineer • EXHIBIT D 1983 - 84 STREET LIGHTING - FUNDING ALTERNATIVES * Lighting Alternatives Payment Mode City Cost Assessment Dist Cost PG&E Rate Cap. Imp . PG&E Rate Cap. Imp. Stay - existing system City pays all $130 , 000 (no upgrade) Assessment Dist $130 , 000 pays all Upgrade without City pays all $170 , 235 incurring capital costs Assessment Dist $170 , 235 pays all City pays up- $ 40 , 235 $130 , 000 grade, Assess- ment Dist pays exist Total upgrade including City pays all $177 , 949 $193 , 400 capital costs ** Assessment Dist $177 , 949 $193 , 400 pays all City pays cap $193 , 400 $177 , 949 costs , Assess- ment Dist pays PG&E rate * These costs do not include the $30 , 000 cost of setting up the district. ** Capital assessment cost can be fronted by City and spread to District over 5 years (presumably over commercially zoned areas) . EXHIBIT E 1983 - 84 STREET LIGHTING COST PROJECTIONS SUMMARY EXISTING ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL NUMBER ENERGY & MAINT ENERGY & MAINT CAPITAL OF ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL COSTS COSTS LIGHTS Non safety lighting system as of July ' 83 $130 , 000 - - 908 Add Residential Lighting - $31 , 646 - 251 Add lights to existing poles in commercial areas - $ 8 , 589 - 61 Add new lighting system in commercial area - $ 7 , 714 * $193 , 400 41 * Based on unit costs supplied by PG&E, actual contracted costs may be somewhat less .