Laserfiche WebLink
Staff met with the Moller Ranch Homeowners Association to discuss increased <br />assessments to meet their repair/replacement capital improvement requirements. While <br />support for an increase in the assessment amount is not overwhelming, the HOA is <br />interested in exploring the cost and benefit aspects of an increase. <br />With the assessment of two city -owned parcels, the City will pay $1,121.06 ($560.53 per <br />parcel). <br />The table below lists (A) the number of parcels in each district, (B) the proposed annual <br />assessment per property for the upcoming fiscal year, (C) the total assessment amount <br />for the district for the upcoming fiscal year, and (D) the existing reserve/deficit for all five <br />landscape maintenance districts. <br />Increases to Assessments <br />Assessments in each of the districts will remain unchanged this fiscal year. As stated in <br />this report and previous reports, assessments have not been increased in the LMDs <br />since they were created. Therefore, the current assessments are based upon operation <br />and maintenance costs, and capital replacement costs, that existed at the time the LMDs <br />were created. The districts have operated year-to-year through a combination of <br />reducing maintenance, shutting down irrigation systems, and depleting capital <br />replacement reserves. This is due in large part to the complicated process required to <br />increase assessments created by the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996. However, <br />annual costs have continued to increase, and capital reserves have been depleted to the <br />point now that this operational strategy is no longer sustainable. The revenue in some <br />districts, as detailed above, is no longer enough to cover the operational costs. This <br />strategy also resulted in depleting the reserves needed for eventual capital replacement. <br />City staff, in consultation with SCI Consulting Group, a consultant that specializes in the <br />formation of LMDs, began the analysis and Proposition 218 compliant voting procedure <br />Page 6of7 <br />Number of <br />Proposed Annual <br />Total AnnualApprox. <br />Assessment <br />Existing <br />LIVID Name <br />Parcels (A) <br />Assessment per <br />Amount for <br />Reserve/(Deficit) <br />Property g <br />p y ( ) <br />District C <br />(D) <br />1984-1 Ponderosa <br />— Del Prado <br />344 <br />$16.90 <br />$5,813.32 <br />$83,000 <br />1993-1 Windsor <br />90 <br />$269.62 <br />$24,265.80 <br />($19,000) <br />1993-2 <br />Bonde Ranch <br />103 <br />$257.22 <br />$26,489.35 <br />$18,000 <br />1994-1 <br />Oak Tree Farm <br />42 <br />$473.66 <br />$19,885.81 <br />$54,000 <br />1995-1 <br />Moller Ranch <br />101 <br />$570.06 <br />$57,557 <br />$263,000 <br />Increases to Assessments <br />Assessments in each of the districts will remain unchanged this fiscal year. As stated in <br />this report and previous reports, assessments have not been increased in the LMDs <br />since they were created. Therefore, the current assessments are based upon operation <br />and maintenance costs, and capital replacement costs, that existed at the time the LMDs <br />were created. The districts have operated year-to-year through a combination of <br />reducing maintenance, shutting down irrigation systems, and depleting capital <br />replacement reserves. This is due in large part to the complicated process required to <br />increase assessments created by the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996. However, <br />annual costs have continued to increase, and capital reserves have been depleted to the <br />point now that this operational strategy is no longer sustainable. The revenue in some <br />districts, as detailed above, is no longer enough to cover the operational costs. This <br />strategy also resulted in depleting the reserves needed for eventual capital replacement. <br />City staff, in consultation with SCI Consulting Group, a consultant that specializes in the <br />formation of LMDs, began the analysis and Proposition 218 compliant voting procedure <br />Page 6of7 <br />