HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 AlaCntyStreetLightAcq
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: December 13, 1993
SUBJECT:
EXHffiITS ATTACHED:
Joint Powers Agreement - Alameda County Street Light
Acquisition
Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson
1) ~Resolution
2) / Proposed Agreement
3) ~, street lighting consultant, will attend the
meeting and be available for -9..ue~s.
-------~."~~..
RECOMMENDATION: /J /1)
.' Ivr 2)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Adopt resolution approving Joint Powers Agreement
Authorize expenditure of up to $5,000 from the Street
Light Maintenance Assessment District reserves for Phase
II of the street lighting study. This will allow an
estimated $4,000 for the appraisal and a $1,000
contingency.
An initial $3,000 has been expended for a preliminary feasibility
study. Dublin I s share of the cost for Phase II of the process
(appraisal of existing street lights) is approximately $4,000.
These costs are proposed to be paid by the Street Lighting
Maintenance Assessment District, as purchase of the street lights
is of potential benefit to the rate payers in the District.
Potential savings to the City-wide Street Lighting Assessment
District are estimated to be approximately $78,000 per year after
the cost of the system has been recovered. It is estimated that it
would take between six and seven years to payoff the cost of
PG&E's lights, with a 5 % cost of money and a preliminary
estimate of the cost of the lights.
If successful, there would be a substantial reduction in the
assessments to the Dublin property owners.
Financing for the buyout could come from General Fund reserves
with repayment of the loan plus interest coming from the savings
in rates.
DESCRIPTION: The County of Alameda and ten cities within the County have
been meeting for several months to discuss acquisition of street lighting from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company as a means of long-term cost savings. While the cost of such a study would be prohibitive
for the City of Dublin to undertake alone, sharing the study and acquisition costs among eleven
agencies makes the process more cost-effective.
The City of Dublin presently has slightly fewer than 1800 street lights, 400 of which are already
owned by the City. The rate paid to PG&E for lights owned by PG&E (various LS-l schedules)
reflects the cost of maintaining the lights, depreciation, and facilities and customer charges, as well as
energy cost. This rate ranges from $6;86 to $16.97 per light per month (most in the $10 to $11
range), depending on wattage and type of installation (wood pole, galvanized metal pole, painted
pole). The rate paid for lights owned by the City (LS2-C schedule) reflects a smaller amount of
maintenance by PG&E (bulbs, photocells, and lenses only, plus a minor amount of "diagnostic"
service) and ranges from $5.07 to $12.97 per light per month (most in the $5 to $7 range). If the
City acquires the lights that are now owned by PG&E and converts the City-owned lights to the
lowest possible rate schedule (PG&E provides energy only), the cost would drop to a range of
approximately $2.67 to $6.12 per light per month. The great majority of the lights in the City are 70-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
ITEM No.8'.1
COPIES TO: Russ Hamm
.
.
watt residential lights, which would be at the lower end of the range. (Rates shown are from the
January 1, 1993 rate schedule. A minor rate adjustment was recently announced in which most rates
decreased by afew cents.)
The consultant being retained to assist the County and cities with the acquisition is Russell Hamm,
who has coordinated the California Street Light Association for a number of years and has worked
with many agencies in acquiring their street lights. Mr. Hamm has stated that the average cost to
purchase an existing street light has been about $257.00. The actual cost per light will depend on the
age of the lights and the type of installation. For example, the street lights on wood poles would be
less than those on metal poles because the wood pole installations only involve an arm and fixture.
The actual purchase price for each light would have to be negotiated with PG&E.
The preliminary feasibility study which was performed by Mr. Hamm provides the following
information pertinent to the City of Dublin's street lighting system:
Enerey:
Rate Schedule
LS-l (pG&E owned)
LS-2B or C (City owned)
TABLE I - EXISTING SCENARIO
(Ener2Y I PG&E Maintenance Cost)
# of Lights Monthly Cost
Annual Cost*
1,354
~
1,769
$12,283.18
2.428.80
$14,711.98
$147,398.16
29.145.60
$176,543.76
* Annual Cost is based on the current number of lights and would change if lights are added or
deleted.
TABLE n - PROPOSED SCENARIO
(Ener2Y Cost From PG&E Plus Estimated Cost of City-Provided Maintenance)
Estimated Estimated
Monthly Cost Annual Cost
Rate Schedule
(Converts to City-owned)
LS-1 to LS-2A
LS-2B or C
to LS- 2A
# of Lights
1,354
....ill.
1,769
$3,268.79
1.576.02
$4,844.81
$39,225.48
18.912.24
$58,137.72
$40.000.00
$98,137.72
Estimated Maintenance:
(see below for details)
Based on the above, the net annual savings to the City of Dublin would be $78,406.04.
Maintenance:
The options discussed in the preliminary feasibility study include maintenance by in-house personnel,
contract personnel, and the utility company. As with the traffic signal maintenance services, it
appears not to be cost-effective to hire in-house personnel. It is estimated that a single technician
could maintain up to 6,000 lights, which is well above the number of lights in the City of Dublin now
or any time in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the City does not have the facilities to support
vehicles or a stock of parts. Mr. Hamm's report estimates the monthly cost of maintenance by in-
house personnel to be $3.30 per light, which is very expensive.
Paying the utility company for maintenance is likewise not desirable. Utility companies have reduced
maintenance personnel to the point that response time could become a problem. The current estimated
cost per light per month for maintenance by utility is $1.55 to $1.60; however, this cost is expected to
increase to about $2.00 over the next few years.
Since the City already contracts for other maintenance services, it appears that contract maintenance is
the best option. Mr. Hamm's report estimates the cost of contract maintenance at $1.30 to $1.55 per
light per month. This would not include the cost of any exceptional work such as repair of
knockdowns, which is estimated at just under $7,100 per year. In the course of working with Mr.
Hamm and the other agencies involved in the street light acquisition, the feasibility of joint
maintenance contracts with some or all of the other agencies will be explored in an effort to keep costs
at a minimum. Table III which follows gives a breakdown of the estimated maintenance cost.
Page 2
TABLE ill
COST OF MAINTENANCE
1,769 lights x $1.55/month estimated maintenance cost = $ 2,741.95/mo.
$2,741.95 x 12 months = $32,903.40
Estimated cost of knockdowns:
$ 7.096.60
$40,000.00
After deducting the estimated annual maintenance cost from the gross savings of $118,406.04, the net
annual savings would be $78,406.04.
Acquisition
It is too early in the process to begin discussing the anticipated capital expenditure for the street
lighting system, as purchase prices are established during negotiations; however, based on average
purchase prices and payback periods which have occurred elsewhere in the State, the payback period
for Dublin is estimated to be six or seven years.As noted below in the description of the Joint Powers
Agreement, the City may elect to drop out of the process at any time.
.J oint Powers Aereement
The Joint Powers Agreement (Exhibit 2) provides for a division of cost among the agencies for further
study toward acquisition of the lights, including appraisals and legal fees and administrative
procedures. The cost sharing of the Phase II study (appraisal) is based on the proportionate share of
PG&E-owned lights, and Phase III (acquisition) is based on the proportionate share of the appraisals.
The City of San Leandro is acting as lead agency for the purpose of administering the consultants'
contracts, and an administrative committee consisting of representatives from four agencies has been
formed. Any of the member agencies of the JPA may, at any time, drop out of the process.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Joint Powers Agreement
and authorize the expenditure of approximately $5,000 from the Street Light Maintenance Assessment
District reserve. Staff will report back to the City Council periodically regarding the study results and
request direction for future steps in the acquisition process.
a: (conrracts2) \stUtes lagsrjpa
. .
RESOLUTION NO. -93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCn..
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT REGARDING
ACQUISITION OF STREET LIGHTS
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda and the cities within the County of Alameda
desire to study the feasibility of purchasing street lights from Pacific Gas and Electric Company in
order to reduce the cost of providing street lighting; and
WHEREAS, a Joint Powers Agreement has been prepared which delineates
administrative and study cost-sharing procedures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Agreement and found it to be
appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the County of Alameda and cities
within the County of Alameda.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the
Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 1993.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
a: (conlracu2) \srUres Iresojpa
r;'~~"}Tr 1
. ." '. ~ ~
....'A~. --"
.
.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
(ALAMEDA COUNTY STREET LIGHT ACQUISITION)
Pursuant to California Government Code sections 6500, et seq. ,
this is a Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA"). This JPA is hereby
entered into by and between the following public agencies
("Parties" or "Party"):
County of Alameda
city of Albany
City of Dublin
City of Emeryville
city of Fremont
city of Hayward
city of Livermore
city of Newark
City of Piedmont
city of Pleasanton
city of San Leandro
City of Union city
This JPA is made and executed on this
1993, in Alameda county, California.
day of
I. RECITALS.
A. Each of the Parties to this JPA is a county or municipal
corporation duly authorized and existing under the laws of the
State of California, and situated within the boundaries of the
county of Alameda; and
B. Each of the Parties to this JPA have in common the powers
and authority to enter into this JPA and carry out its purpose and
intent; and
C. Each of the Parties to this JPA currently provides street
lighting systems for the health, safety and welfare of its
respective residents; and
D. Portions of such street lighting systems are owned and
maintained by Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"), which
charges the Parties to this JPA a monthly or other periodic fee for
providing street lighting facilities and energy for such
facilities; and
E. This JPA is entered into by the Parties to study the
feasibility and cost of acquisition of street lights and
appurtenant facilities owned by PG&E. Should it be determined that
the public interest and necessity so warrants, based upon such
study and upon due consideration of any other relevant information,
the Parties intend by this JPA to provide for environmental review,
appraisal, and acquisition of such street lights by all lawful
means and by the powers held in common by each Party.
F/r r'qr f) ~
___ .fi6.J,-J',.r-
.
.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits,
covenants and agreements set forth below, the Parties agree as
follows:
II. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this JPA is to study the joint acquisition of
all PG&E street lights currently in place within the jurisdiction
and boundaries of each of the Parties, and to equitably spread the
costs of acquisition among the Parties should each Party so
determine to acquire street lights within its jurisdiction. It is
not the purpose of the JPA to make any determination at this time
as to the pUblic interest and/or necessity of acquiring such street
lights. Any Party to the JPA may determine at any time, based upon
due consideration of any and all relevant information, that it is
not in the public interest and/or necessity to acquire such street
lights. This JPA does not govern the ability or discretion of any
Party to make such determination, and in no way suggests, implies
or advises any Party to make (or not to make) such determination.
It is not the purpose of this JPA to create a separate public
agency, and no provision of this JPA should be so construed.
III. ADMINISTRATION OF JPA.
A. Party Delegated to Administer Aqreement. The Parties
agree that, SUbject to paragraph III.B. below, the City of San
Leandro shall act on behalf of all parties for purposes of the
retention, administration and dismissal of environmental
consul tants, appraisers, economists, attorneys, and all other
professional services required to carry out the purposes of this
JPA. The city of San Leandro shall pay all invoices when due,
collect all funds necessary from the Parties, have custody and
control of such funds, and otherwise fully account to the Parties
for income and expenses incurred. A majority of the Parties may,
however, at any time agree to substitute any other Party for the
City of San Leandro.
B. Administrative Committee. The Parties shall designate
Robert Taylor of the city of San Leandro, Dennis Jones of the city
of Fremont, Mary Erchul of the city of Pleasanton, and Ralph
Johnson of the County of Alameda as an Administrative Committee.
Such Committee shall meet to conduct any business necessary to
effectuate the purpose of this JPA. The Administrative Committee
shall review and approve the retention, performance and dismissal
of all environmental consultants, appraisers, economists,
attorneys, and all other professional service providers required
to carry out the purposes of this JPA. The Administrative
Committee shall establish such rules and procedures as are
necessary for the orderly conduct of business. The Administrative
Committee shall establish procedures for billing the Parties for
the respective share of costs incurred.
.
.
IV. PROCESS OF ACQUISITION.
A. cost sharinq. This JPA contemplates the retention of
various consultants and professionals to provide services through
this JPA on behalf of the Parties. The Parties acknowledge that
certain preliminary work has been performed for the Parties to
date. This work is referred to as Phase I. The cost of such Phase
I work has been or shall be borne by each individual Party. The
costs of the Phase II and Phase III work shall be divided among the
Parties as hereinafter provided.
B. Phase II.
1. CEQA Compliance. The Administrative committee shall
retain an environmental consultant to review the environmental
impacts, if any, should any of the Parties' determine to acquire
all PG&E street lights currently in place within the jurisdiction
each of the Parties. Based upon the environmental consultant's
findings, and any other pertinent information, the Parties shall
separately and independently review and determine all necessary and
appropriate steps to take in order to bring a potential joint
acquisition of PG&E street lights into compliance with CEQA.
2. AppraisaL The Administrative committee shall
retain an appraiser to make a determination of the fair market
value of the street lights within each Party's respective
jurisdiction.
3. Economic Analvses. The Administrative committee
shall retain an economic analysist to study, based on the appraisal
and any other relevant information, the feasibility of acquiring
the street lights from PG&E.
4. Government Code ~ 7267.2 Offers. Based upon the
economic analysis, and upon any other pertinent information, the
parties may decide to make an offer to purchase some or all of the
street lights within their respective jurisdiction and boundaries.
The Parties agree that, in the event such determination is made,
the Administrative Committee should coordinate the preparation and
timing of any offers to PG&E.
5. Eminent Domain Anal vsis. If any of the Parties
decide to make any offers to PG&E, and if PG&E rejects any of the
offers, the Administrative committee shall retain an attorney to
analyze the possibility of acquiring the streets by eminent domain.
Such analysis would include, among others, the issue of whether any
parties have a right to take the street lights by eminent domain,
and whether any acquisition is supported by the California Eminent
Domain Law, including but not limited to the more necessary public
use provisions of Code of civil Procedure section 1240.610, et.
seq.. However, such analysis would have no bearing, impact or
affect on the Parties' discretion to determine, based on any
relevant information, that the public interest and necessity do not
require the acquisition' of any street lights by eminent domain.
.
.
6. Cost Sharinq of PHASE II. Each Party agrees to
share the costs of all Phase II work in proportion to the number
of street lights within each Party's respective jurisdiction to be
acquired, and to the total number of street lights to be acquired
in all parties' jurisdictions combined. By way of example, the
costs of one professional consultant may be $5,000. If there are
a total of 25,000 street lights in all Parties' jurisdictions
combined, and if there are 5,000 street lights within city "X's"
jurisdiction, City "X" would then be responsible for one-fifth
(1/5) of the consultant's fees, or $1,000.
C. Phase III.
1. Eminent Domain. If PG&E rejects any of the Parties'
offers, and if any of the Parties so desire, any Party may consider
the possibility of acquiring any of the street lights by eminent
domain. In that event, any Party may request the Administrative
Committee to retain legal counsel specializing in eminent domain
to assist any of the Parties in all litigation pertaining to any
acquisition by eminent domain. Such assistance shall include, but
is not limited to, the procedure for adopting a resolution of
necessity under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.040 and
1245.210, et seq., the procedure for commencing eminent domain
proceedings, and the procedure for obtaining a judgment in the
eminent domain action. For this purpose, the requesting Parties
agree that any potential eminent domain action should be
consolidated, such that any requesting Party seeking to exercise
its eminent domain authority shall do so with any other requesting
Parties seeking to do the same in one lawsuit. Such lawsuit would
be filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County.
This provision has no bearing, impact or effect on any Party's
discretion to determine that the public interest and necessity does
not require the acquisition of any street lights by eminent domain.
Further, this provision has no bearing, impact or effect on any
Party's discretion to determine that any of the requirements for
adopting a resolution of necessity under Code of civil Procedure
sections 1240.030 and 1245.230 have not been met or satisfied.
2. cost Sharinq for Acquisition Costs. Any Party
determining to acquire any street lights by eminent domain will
share in the costs of acquisition with any other Party doing the
same as follows:
a. If there is a settlement of the eminent domain
action, the Parties' legal counsel shall request the
value of the street lights acquired in each Party's
respective jurisdiction to be separately determined.
Each Party would then be responsible for the agreed
value of street lights acquired in that Party's
jurisdiction;
b. If ,there is a verdict in an eminent domain
.
.
action, the Parties' legal counsel shall request the
jury to separately value (by way of a special
verdict) the street lights acquired in each Party's
respective jurisdiction. Each Party would then be
responsible for the acquisition costs of the street
lights acquired in that Party's jurisdiction.
c. If, in either a settlement or verdict in the
eminent domain action, a separate valuation of
street lights acquired within each Party's
jurisdiction cannot (for any reason) be obtained,
the Parties agree to share the costs of acquisition
on the basis of each Party's relative responsibility
as determined by the appraisal upon which the
Parties base their Government Code S 7267.2 offer.
By way of illustration, assume the Parties'
appraisal estimated a total value of $1,000,000 for
all street lights. Assume further that the
appraisal estimated the street lights acquired
within city "XiS" jurisdiction at $100,000, or one-
tenth (1/10) of the total value of all street lights
acquired. If the Parties subsequently agree to
settle the matter in full for $1,200,000, or if a
jury awards a total value of $1,200,000, City "X"
would then be responsible for one-tenth (1/10) of
$1,200,000, or $120,000.
3. Cost Sharinq for Li tiqation Expenses. The costs of
litigation expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert consultants'
fees, deposition transcripts and any other costs necessarily
incurred in an eminent domain action, shall be shared by each Party
in accordance with each Party's relative responsibility as
determined by the appraisal upon which the Parties base their
Government Code S 7267.2 offer. By way of illustration, assume
that the appraisal (upon which the S 7267.2 offer is based)
estimated the street lights acquired wi thin city "X' s" jurisdiction
to be valued at one-tenth (1/10) of the total value of all street
lights acquired. city "X" would then be responsible for one-tenth
(1/10) of the Parties' total litigation expenses.
v. TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL.
Any Party may at any time terminate its participation in, and
withdrawal from, this JPA by providing written notice of said
termination and withdrawal to the city of San Leandro, c/o Robert
Taylor, Public Works Services, 14200 Chapman Road, San Leandro,
California, 94578. Mr. Taylor will promptly notify all other
Parties. Such termination and withdrawal shall become effective
upon thirty (30) days of written notice.
Any Party that terminates its participation in, and withdraws
from, this JPA shall be liable for its share of costs for Phase II
or Phase III work at the time the termination and withdrawal
becomes effective. Such Party shall be solely responsible,
.
.
however, for any and all damages and litigation expenses (including
but not limited to attorneys' fees) arising out of any abandonment
or loss of use of street lights within the Party's jurisdiction.
VI. RECIPROCAL HOLD HARMLESS.
Subject to paragraph V above, each Party agrees to hold any
other Party harmless against any and all claims arising out of a
Party's participation in and conduct pursuant to this JPA.
VII. AMENDMENT.
This JPA may be amended only by the written consent of all
Parties to this JPA.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By
President, Board of supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
CITY OF ALBANY, a non-prof it
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
.
.
CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a municipal
corporation
By
city Manager
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
CITY OF FREMONT, a municipal
corporation
By
city Manager
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
.
.
CITY OF HAYWARD, a municipal
corporation
By
ci ty Manager .
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
CITY OF LIVERMORE, a municipal
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
.
.
CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
CITY OF PIEDMONT, a municipal
corporation
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
.
.
CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal
corporation
By
City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a municipal
corporation
By
city Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
.
.
CITY OF UNION CITY
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
city Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
city Attorney
136\agree\strlght.dws