HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials Distributed at MeetingStreet Light Assessment District
Study Session
September 1, 2009
Summary
• Existing Street Lighting Assessment District will expire
June 30, 2010.
• With expiration, City will lose approximately $400,0001
in revenue annually.
• Formation proceeding for a new District narrowly failed
in FY 2008 -09
• Capital Improvement Budget includes a project to
revisit the formation of a new Citywide Street Lighting
Assessment District ($136,000)
E-
IS4. 1, '40c I
W
Available Options for Consideration
1. Begin the formation procedure for a new Street Lighting Assessment
District
• Build on the prior assessment process
• Re- evaluate and modify last year's approach
Modify the method of apportionment
• Prepare a new Engineer's Report
• Simplify the required Notice of Public Hearing and Ballot
• Expand and enhance Public Education
2. Allow the District to expire and City pays all costs associated with street
lighting by reducing services in one or more of the following areas to absorb
the revenue loss.
• Eliminate Annual Slurry Seal Program - $400,000
• Increase Tree Trimming schedule from
• 4 to 5 years - $49,000
• 4 to 6 years - $98,000
• Change Weekly to Bi- Weekly Street Sweeping - $125,000
Background
• Total cost of operating and maintaining the Street Light
Districts in Arcadia - $980,000
• Currently there are 5 inequitable Lighting Districts in the
City.
• Single- Family Residential units passed the assessment
while Commercial and Multi - Family units opposed the
assessment.
• There are 14,600 parcels that would need to be levied
to fund the continued maintenance of the Street
Lighting District.
tl
i
Land Use
Assessed
Yes Votes
No Votes
Designation
Value
Parcels
Voted
Single Family
$ 201,480
$ 38,823
$ 35,525
Residential
1,767
1,628
Residential
Multi - Family/
$ 152,501
$ 16,412
$ 36,139
Condominiums
4,376
1,221
540
Commercial/
$46,801
$ 6,121
$ 11,131
Industrial
Commercial/
930
Non Residential/
$ 3,211
$ 838
$ 586
Public Property*
TOTALS
$ 403,993
$ 62,194
$ 83,381
Street Light
Assessment District
Study Session
September 1, 2009
AacnoiA
Land Use
Total
Parcels
that
Yes
No
Designation
Parcels
Voted
Votes
Votes
Single Family
9,255
3,395
1,767
1,628
Residential
Multi - Family/
4,376
1,221
540
681
Condominiums
Commercial/
930
351
137
214
Industrial
Non Residential/
301
20
13
7
Public Property"
TOTALS
14,862
4,987
2,457
2,530
*Non Residential /Public Property: public related services such
as churches, schools, hospitals & retirement homes
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Ballot Summary Based on Assessed Value
Single Family Multi- Commercial /Industrial Non - Residential /Public
Residential Family /Condominiums Property
Ballot Summary Based on Voter Turnout
2000 -- - -
1800 - -
1600 YES 52%
NO 48%
1400
1200 -- - -
1000 -
800 -- --
600
NO 56%
400 YES 44%
200
0
Single Family Residential Multi-
Family/Condominiums
Commercial /Industrial Non - Residential /Public
Property
R
i
JOEL S. MOSKOWITZ
Employment:
2008- Present Senior Vice President
Caruso Affiliated
1998-2008 Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman LLP
Founding partner in a firm specializing in environmental and business litigation
and transactions.
1996-1998 Moskowitz, Wood Fe Nyznyk LLP
Founding partner.
1985 to 1996 - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Of counsel for three years and then a partner for seven years in a national
environmental law practice.
1983 to 1985 - Deputy Director for Toxic Substances
Control, California Department of
Health Services
Appointed by California's Governor to run the state's hazardous waste regulatory
and cleanup programs, consisting of over 400 employees and a budget of over $75
million.
1970 to 1983 - Deputy Attorney General
California Department of Justice
1974 to 1983 - Environment /Public Resources Section
1970 to 1973 - Criminal Division
Represented 23 state agencies in major environmental litigation, including
hazardous waste, air and water pollution, environmental impact reports,
administrative law and water rights. Appeared and argued in the United States
Supreme Court, three federal circuits, and all levels of California Courts, with over
20 noteworthy published opinions.
Education: B.A. 1967, J.D. 1970, U.C.L.A.
Phi Beta Kappa, Honors
.1
Joel S. Moskowitz
Experience in CEQA litigation:
Handled CEQA litigation for 22 state agencies. Also served as a legal counsel to
the Resources Agency in its adoption of CEQA guidelines. Published decisions, as a
result of CEQA work include:
Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County
52 Cal.3d 553 (1990)
[Defended EIR for beachside hotel]
No Oil, Inc v. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal.App.3d 223 (1987), hear den.
[Challenge to adequacy of EIR for oil extraction]
Neighborhood Action Group v County of Calaveras, 156 Cal.App.3d 1176 (1984)
[Demand for EIR for police surveillance]
Gallegos et al. v. Cal State Bd of Forestrti, 76 Cal.App.3d 945 (1978)
[Adequacy of EIR for Timber Harvesting]
Asphalt Roofing Mfg Assoc v ICC, 567 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
[NEPA challenge to rate structure for recycled materials]
Coronado v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com., 69 Cal.App.3d 570
(1977)
[Adequacy of EIR for approval of trailer park]
NRDC v. Arcata Nat Corp., 59 Cal. App.3d 959 (1976)
[Requirement of EIR for Timber Harvesting Plans]
Communitv and Professional Service:
Founding member, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Environmental Law
Section, 1986 to 1988
Member, Editorial Advisory Board, California Environmental Law Reporter
(Matthew Bender), 1991- 2009
Member, Advisory Board, California Water Law & Policy, 1994 -2007
Member, State Bar Committee on Appellate Courts, 1983 -1986, Committee on
Committee on Condemnation, 1979 -1980