Loading...
Item 5.1 - Workshop to Discuss Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Group RecommendationsDATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT SUBJECT: Summary: City of Poway COUNCIL AGENDA March 19, 2019 REPORT Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Michael Obermiller, P.E., Director of Public Works APPROVED APPROVED AS AMENDED (SEE MINUTES) DENIED REMOVED CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. Eric Heidemann, Assistant Director of Public Works for Maintenance Operations eheidemann@poway.org 7 Workshop to Discuss Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Group Recommendations On August 21, 2018, the City Council directed staff to form a volunteer advisory group to solicit community ideas and recommendations about LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1. Staff's goal was to support the group in a collaborative way by being a resource and providing background information on the LMDs. The goal was to report back to the City Council in March 2019; timing extremely critical because of the districts' funding status. The LMD Advisory Group, comprised of property owners within LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1, has completed its analysis and is providing recommendations for funding and maintenance strategies for these two LMDs. The Advisory Group presents its analysis and recommendations in the attached report (Attachment A). The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the LMD Advisory Group's recommendations for improving and maintaining the landscaping in LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 and solicit City Council feedback and direction on next steps. Backaround: In light of the failed ballot proceedings last year for LMD 83-1 (18-1) and LMD 86-1 (18-2), the City Council was presented with difficult choices at the August 21, 2018 City Council meeting. At that time, staff reported that assessment revenue collected in LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 was no longer sufficient to fund their improvements and services. Reserve funds had gradually been depleted as expenses grew and assessment revenue did not. In both Districts, it was (and still is) necessary to use a portion of the reserves each year to pay for annual operations. Consequently, the level of landscape maintenance service has gradually been reduced based on available funding. Reducing the levels of maintenance has caused significant deterioration to the condition of the landscaping improvements. This, coupled with years of drought conditions and rising labor and water costs, further depleted fund reserves to a critical point. On August 21, 2018, staff outlined three options for the City Council to consider, with staff recommending Option 2: Option 1: Continue to reduce service levels, including watering schedules and tree maintenance, to align with projected assessment revenue. Staff pointed out that there was inherent risk with this option in that many of the trees within these LMDs were located along major 1 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1 J ■ I■ Workshop to Discuss LMD Advisory Group Recommendations March 19. 2019 Page 2 arterial streets with travel speeds up to 45 mph Staff did not recommend this option Option 2 Provide a one-time appropriation to restore watering frequency to three times per week and allow for as -needed removal of dead/diseased/fallen trees while the City develops long- term options with assistance from an LMD Advisory Group Option 3: Provide funding to conduct a multi-year. phased removal of trees in high-risk areas, such as major arterials The intent would be to clear-cut large areas of landscape material, which would reduce the size and amount of improvements to further minimize water and tree maintenance costs This option would also reduce (and eventually remove) risks associated with falling trees and limbs, as trees would be removed without being replaced If this option were selected, staff would return with maps and locations for recommendations of specific areas. as well as cost estimates for removal As an interim measure. the City Council chose Option 2 and. appropriated $165.530 from the General Fund Reserves to restore watering to three days per week [from once a week for LMD 83-1 ($113.870) and twice a week for LMD 86-1 ($51.660)] only for the remainder of the fiscal year. appropriated $100.000 from the General Fund Reserves for emergency removal of dead/diseased/fallen trees in LMD 83-1 ($50.000) and LMD 86-1 ($50.000) only for the remainder of the fiscal year and directed staff to form a volunteer advisory group that would report back to Council in March 2019 LMD Advisory Group: The LMD Advisory Group, appointed by the City Manager consists of 13 residents living within the two LMDs Members of the Advisory Group represent a broad range of professional skills and disciplines such as accountants. engineers planners and prominent business people To be appointed to the LMD Advisory Group. each resident formally requested to be selected to volunteer their time and expertise to solve this challenging issue It cannot be overstated how committed and invested this group is to this issue, and how diligently they worked through complex information Beginning on October 11. 2018, and concluding on March 7. 2019. the Advisory Group held a total of 11 meetings During these meetings a chair (Ms Toni Bates) and co -chairperson (Mr John McCormick) were selected to facilitate discussions and steer the committee The group spent considerable time discussing topics such as finances, grant funding, funding for landscape rehabilitation, master planning, surveying of residents. failure of the former ballot measure, watering schedules. irrigation systems. and landscape and tree maintenance strategies Staff's objective was to assist the group with full disclosure of available information and make every resource available Staff provided the complete financial history of the districts (assessment revenue city general benefit contributions and administrative costs), current landscape maintenance contracts. engineer's reports, water consumption data, traffic counts and landscape service levels In addition. a series of speakers were invited to present a better understanding of specific subject areas relative to the LMD s The speakers included 1 Certified Arborist Addressed trees and their benefits how they are maintained. causes of stress, removal. thinning and frequent trimming. benefits of mulch. efficient 2 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1 Workshop to Discuss LMD Advisory Group Recommendations March 19, 2019 Page 3 irrigation systems. deep watering pitfalls of a monoculture (single type) of trees and prevailing wages. 2 Special Districts Assessment Engineer Addressed the benefits and short comings of a Special District. Mello Roos District and a citywide tax Suggested creating a 10 - year plan to plant more sustainable plants rehabilitating areas and potentially enlisting an (Homeowner's Association) HOA to implement improvements. 3 Deputy Fire Chief (Fire Marshal) from the City of Poway Gave a history of his experience with fire management and responding to fires. reducing fire hazards of tree fires by clearing ground debris and consistent maintenance raising limbs and thinning canopies. 4 City Landscape Inspector Toured members of the Advisory Group through LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Provided members with maps and explained the contracted services. 5 Landscape Architect Discussed the concept of a landscape master plan, the process involved to develop a plan and a general idea on the costs to prepare a plan. 6 Attorney (Specializing in Special Districts Assessment Law) Discussed the substantive and procedural requirements of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Article XIII of the California Constitution and Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Due to the heft and breadth of the LMD Advisory Group report, staff will summarize its recommendations here Chair Toni Bates will present the Group's report in more detail to Council at the Workshop Beginning on page 8 of the Advisory Group's report it is recommended that the City partner with the LMDs to fund a strategy that will support efforts to successfully re -ballot for increased LMD assessments These recommendations assume that the City would re -ballot the LMDs for an increased assessment in about two years (FY 2020-21). and are generally divided between activities that would precede re -balloting (the next 18-24 months) and those that would follow the re -balloting Pre -ballot funding (Year 1 = $525.000. Year 2 = $425.000) Landscape Master Plan Model entrances LMD Advisory Group re -ballot activities Tree removal / maintenance Supplemental water Post -ballot funding (Year 3 - $384.000, Year 4 = $235.000, Year 5 = $137,000) • Detailed landscape design (entrances & arterials) Ongoing tree removal (1-2 years) Capital funding for rehabilitation (partial loan) • Specific areas shifted to City responsibility The Advisory Group commits to an ongoing undertaking an outreach and communication recommendations were adopted by Council role in this effort, including developing and program prior to re -balloting, if the above Because this report is being presented in a Workshop setting. the City Council will not be taking a formal vote However. staff is looking for direction from Council as to next steps If Council is interested in having staff evaluate the feasibility and cost of the Advisory Group's recommendations staff could return with an analysis 3 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1 Workshop to Discuss LIVID Advisory Group Recommendations March 19, 2019 Page 4 Financial Outlook The LMDs cannot pay for current service levels This has been accelerated by increased costs for contracted labor (prevailing wage). multi-year drought. cost of water and poor health and stress of trees The gap between revenue and expenditures continues to widen and reserve balances are unsustainable To date. staffs only option had been to cut service levels to reduce expenditures. While this has resulted in temporary relief, it will inevitably lead to increased clean up and repair costs Further. the lack of adequate assessment revenue and depletion of reserves has resulted in deferred maintenance and improvements to each districts irrigation systems The table below represents the estimated revenue. expenditures and fund balance from the Fiscal Year 2017-18 adopted budget Reserve LMD Expenses Revenue Difference Fund Balance 83-1 $322,917 $277,230 $45,687 $170,464 86-1 $282,928 $283,970 $1,042 $152,920 As noted previously the City Council appropriated additional funds this year for water and emergency tree removals For several reasons, including the unusually wet year, staff does not expect to spend the total balance of those funds Below is a simple reconciliation of the appropriated funds 83-1 One-time additional appropriations Water $113.870 with $77.265 remaining Trees $50,000. with $13.251 remaining 86-1 One-time additional appropriations Water $51.660. with $51.660 remaining Trees $50.000. with $23.043 remaining Although staff's recommendation last year was to have any unused funds returned to the General Fund Reserves. staff recommends that the remaining funds be carried over to next year for the same intended purpose Environmental Review: This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review Fiscal Impact: None 4 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1 Workshop to Discuss LIVID Advisory Group Recommendations March 19, 2019 Page 5 Attachment: A. LIVID Advisory Group Report Reviewed/Approved By: Wendy Kaserman Assistant City Manager Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney Approved ,By: d Tina M. White City Manager 5 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item # 5.1 Date: March 19, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD) 83-1 and 86-1 Advisory Committee Subject: LMD Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations This memo presents the report from the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Advisory Committee for LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 related to the status and future of these two LMDs and associated landscape maintenance areas. The report includes our observations, findings, proposals and recommendations from our six month review and analysis of the LMDs, including: • Goals • History • Financial Status and Budgets • Maintenance Status • Maintenance Areas • Failed 2018 Ballot • Engineer's Report • Opportunities and Risks INTRODUCTION The LMD Advisory Committee appreciates the opportunity to propose a strategy and recommendations for improving and maintaining the landscaped areas within the two districts following the failed assessment increase ballot in May 2018. Our Committee of 13 members (Attachment A), all property owners within LMD 83-1 and 86-1, has met eleven times since October 2018. City of Poway staff has been extremely helpful in providing us with information, data, tours and feedback as we evaluated the issues and developed our proposals and recommendations. GOALS The LMD Advisory Committee established several key goals: • rehabilitate the landscaping in the two LMDs to a level that improves aesthetics for the residents and businesses within the LMDs, and ensures that these public spaces reflect the appearance and general welfare that ALL residents desire and have come to expect of Poway • address fire and life safety issues not just for the LMDs but for the entire city, related to the overgrown trees and ground debris, particularly along Twin Peaks and Espola roads • reduce/stabilize ongoing costs to maintain the LMD landscaping to bring them in line with recurring revenues so that maintenance is sustainable over the long term • establish a cost sharing formula that makes sense and is fair to both the property owners and City • ensure success of a second ballot to generate the revenues necessary to preserve the landscaping and sustain the LMDs into the future. 1 6 of 33 ATTACHMENT A March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 RISKS OF DOING NOTHING This report will present in some detail the basis for the planning, implementation and funding strategy developed by the Advisory Committee to achieve the established goals. The Advisory Committee realizes that its proposals and recommendations resulting from this strategy are no small undertaking and will require a significant short term financial commitment from the City for success. Therefore, we also assessed the potential outcomes and risks associated with not pursuing the proposed strategy — the risks of doing nothing. These potential risks warrant consideration when reviewing the Advisory Committee proposals and recommendations as they could lead to undesirable consequences for the City as well as the LMDs. Briefly, the scenarios that could result should we not take action now (or should the re -ballot fail) include: • Increased Fire and Life Safety Risks: The LMDs would continue to deteriorate (particularly the trees) exacerbating fire and life safety issues. Should this occur, the City would likely be forced into a position to address the tree issue independent of the LMDs, since the LMDs are not in a financial position to do so themselves. • Loss of "Special Benefit": The ongoing deterioration of landscaping and trees could result in the loss of any "special benefits" to the LMDs. Without special benefits, the LMDs would likely be able to make the case that they should be dissolved, which would result in loss of existing LIVID assessment revenues. The City could find itself in a position in which it must increase funding over the long term to address landscape maintenance and safety issues without LIVID revenues. • Confused and Concerned Constituency: Should the aesthetics and safety of the major thoroughfares within the LMDs deteriorate further, residents and property owners could look to the City to "make the situation right". Powegians are proud of their City and expect the City to provide the services necessary to justify that pride. Residents and property owners outside the LMDs don't differentiate between who is funding maintenance, and will look to the City for solutions. • City Ends Up Paying More: A goal of the Advisory Committee is to get the LMDs to a state that is manageable over the long term with LIVID assessments and lower, predictable City funding. If we don't pursue a new approach to try to achieve a successful re -ballot, the issues associated with the LMDs will continue to exist. Meanwhile, LIVID assessment revenues will not increase and maintenance costs will continue to rise. Ultimately, the increasing cost of tree maintenance, irrigation system maintenance, general maintenance, water, clean-up, and emergency issues will transfer to the City's General Fund. Attachment B graphically displays the projected 10 -year trajectory of costs to the City for the Advisory Committee's recommended strategy, a do-nothing scenario, and a do-nothing scenario with the loss of LIVID revenue. Details of the basis for these projections are discussed and presented later in this report. HISTORICAL FACTORS: HOW DID WE GET HERE? The current status of the landscaping in the LMDs is less than desirable. Original landscaped areas have died, trees are overgrown and diseased, and ground debris and trash has accumulated. Over the last 20 years, factors both beyond and within the City's control have resulted in the deterioration and loss of landscaped areas and the overgrowth and escalating safety hazard of the trees. These factors include: 7 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 • Severe drought that has put a strain on both landscaping and trees, resulting in loss and disease • Higher costs for water that resulted in reduced watering frequency in the LMDs • Higher costs for wages (contracted maintenance services) as required by California prevailing wage law, leading to reductions in maintenance service frequencies • Aging irrigation infrastructure that results in inefficiencies (i.e., sprinklers vs. drip, inability to remotely control watering schedules), increased maintenance, and challenging and costly modernization • Escalating tree maintenance, particularly on Twin Peaks Road, as a result of tree growth, the increased numbers of trees (from volunteers or offshoots of older trees), and weakened and diseased trees exacerbated by the drought • No LMD assessment increase since 1998 when Proposition 218 passed which required that any increases in LMD assessments, including escalation factors, be balloted and approved by 50% plus one of those assessed. At the time Proposition 218 passed, LIVID revenues were sufficient to fund required maintenance. But as costs increased, and it became apparent that costs would exceed revenues in the years ahead, the City neglected to take timely action to ballot the LMDs to seek incorporation of escalation factors and/or modest assessment increases to avert a crisis. Instead, as expenses exceeded revenue, the City chose to curtail maintenance and neglect necessary capital investment, resulting in deteriorated and unsalvageable landscaping, and considerable fire, safety and maintenance issues associated with the trees. The delayed action has also compelled the City to shift $265,000 in general fund monies to the LMDs in the current fiscal year to address emergency tree maintenance and water needs to try to forestall further deterioration. • The failed 2018 LMD ballot was intended to increase assessments to support increased maintenance and landscape rehabilitation within the LMDs. The Advisory Committee tried to parse the reasons the ballot failed through analysis of issues as well as informal surveys of our neighbors to better understand the lack of support for an assessment increase. A number of reasons clearly presented themselves: Perceived poor City management of LMDs that resulted in loss of landscaped areas, overgrown trees, and failure to anticipate future needs Lack of a well-defined plan or clear proposal for what would be done to improve the aesthetics and safety of the landscape maintenance areas within the LMDs. Would trees be trimmed more often? Would previously landscaped areas be renewed? Would debris and trash be removed? Or would increased assessments simply go toward covering increased costs for the status quo? Property owners were unable to grasp what an increased assessment would or could produce. o Lack of specific commitments as to when any vaguely identified improvements would occur. While photos of beautifully landscaped examples were shown to the property owners at open houses, the City was unable to commit to any specific rehabilitation plan or schedule because improvements were wholly dependent on building enough funding reserves in the LMDs to pay for them - a timeframe left undefined. Likewise, for those concerned about the safety of the trees, the City could not commit to a 8 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 program for removal and thinning of trees because the LMDs were unlikely to be able to fund the undertaking completely on their own. o Required years for rehabilitation improvements to be implemented due to the large one-time capital expenditures required. Even with the undefined timeframe cited above, it was apparent that any capital rehabilitation would not occur in the short term as most of the increased assessment revenues would have been directed toward the increased costs of ongoing maintenance first. As a result, many property owners were either skeptical or saw no short term benefit from an increased assessment. Weak nexus to "special" benefits resulted in a strong feeling of inequity among property owners. The vast majority of the areas being maintained by the LMD are on major City thoroughfares (Espola Road, Pomerado Road, Twin Peaks Road, Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte). While these areas were placed in the LMDs in the 1980s when the neighborhoods were new, the character of the LMD areas and particularly these arterial streets has changed significantly over the last three decades. Both Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte have become primary access roads to freeways for a large subregion of northeast Poway and beyond. Ted Williams Parkway was not even open when the LMDs were established. In 2015, Twin Peaks Road carried 46,900 vehicle trips a day (more recent data is not available), a 20% increase over 2000. By comparison, that is well above Poway Road's 33,100 daily trips in 2015, and daily traffic on Poway Road has actually declined since 2000 (possibly shifting to Twin Peaks Road). As a result, many homeowners in the LMDs don't perceive these arterials as "belonging" to their neighborhoods and feel that all those who make use of these major roadways benefit from maintained landscaping, and therefore, the City should be a larger landscape maintenance funding partner with the LMDs. Significant increases in assessments and new assessed areas added led to both the resentment over the definition and concept of "fair share" for difficult to understand special benefits, and opposition to paying for something for the first time that is perceived to have been a City responsibility in the past. In LMD 83-1, 94% of homeowners were asked to increase their assessments by 92% or more, or pay for the first time (more than 76% were asked to increase assessments by 92%; another 4% were asked to increase by 123%; almost 14% were asked to pay the assessment for the first time). In 86-1, property owners were asked to increase their assessments by between 59% and 106% and close to one hundred were asked to pay for the first time. Although many homeowners stated that it wasn't about the money, coupled with the other issues discussed above, the extent of proposed assessment increases soured homeowners on the concept that these very public areas were primarily their financial responsibility to maintain. o Complicated ballot wording led many homeowners to either vote no or not vote at all. Although the city held several Open Houses to provide information to property owners, most property owners received their information via door hangers and the mailed ballot. The bureaucratic and legal language on both made it difficult to easily understand. It also appears that many property owners within the LMD do not realize 9 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 they are currently paying an LMD assessment and therefore, ignored notices they thought were irrelevant. The Committee believes that the lack of user friendly information led to apathy or an "I'll get back to that later" attitude that resulted in almost 45% of homeowners in LMD 83-1 to not cast a ballot. OTHER DISCOVERIES During the course of the Advisory Committee's work, we discovered a number of unexpected factors that influenced our proposals and recommendations: • The two I have somewhat different maintenance needs: In LMD 83-1, the eucalyptus trees along Twin Peaks Road are the largest maintenance issue. Since the original trees were planted over 30 years ago, they have grown to significant heights and sprouted hundreds of offshoots, many of which are now reaching mid-size. The sheer number of trees that now exists along the roadway, combined with drought -prompted disease has overwhelmed the ability of both the LMD and City to manage tree maintenance for both aesthetics and to reduce fire and safety (falling trees and branches) threats within the current LMD funding structure. c In LMD 86-1, the largest maintenance expense is water (40% of LMD 86-1 costs are for water) as there are more and larger areas that contain shrubbery, groundcover, tree varieties and other landscaping than in LMD 83-1. However, LMD 86-1 has many eucalyptus trees as well, and while most seem to be in better health than those in LMD 83-1, they also require ongoing maintenance to improve aesthetics and reduce fire and life safety hazards. • The way the trees were planted impacts maintenance in the long-term and the failure to plant properly 30 years ago has contributed to the problem we face today. The Committee learned that monocultures (planting only one type of tree in an area) are much more susceptible to disease because pests (in the case of the trees on Twin Peaks, beetles) can easily move from one tree to another of the same species. Mixing tree species makes it harder for eucalyptus loving beetles, for example, to jump to the next group of eucalyptus if another kind of tree is in the way. The eucalyptus monoculture on Twin Peaks Road has made it challenging to control tree disease and death. Another factor contributing to the tree maintenance challenge is that the trees in both LMDs have always been watered using sprinklers. This has required the trees to seek surface water (vs. deep water) which has exacerbated the proliferation of new sprouts. • The basis of the Engineer's Report for defining "special benefits' is challenging to understand and justify. While the Committee understands that Proposition 218 requires an analysis of special benefit by a qualified professional to determine LMD assessments, the inability to fully explain the basis and logic for conclusions in the Engineer's Report related to what constitutes a special benefit and how allocation of special vs. general benefit is derived has led the Committee to conclude that there is subjectivity in the engineer's analysis and results. The engineer's task was made more difficult by the fact that there are many disjointed areas being maintained by the LMDs (as discussed in the following two bullets), but that fact should have alerted the engineer to question the special benefit logic, particularly as it relates to these areas. 10 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 • There are many "hidden" areas that are being maintained within both LMDs. It was eye opening for the Committee to discover during our tour that the LMDs are maintaining isolated areas along easements, in culverts, on private property, and/or surrounded by non-LMD open space. Many of these areas are not visible from streets, are somewhat inaccessible, appear to be remnant sites from development, and/or seem to have been included solely to benefit an immediately adjacent property. As a result, they provide little special benefit to the broader LMDs. The logic of including these areas for maintenance is lost to history, but there is now an opportunity to redefine maintenance priorities and responsibility going forward, as discussed in the Maintenance Priorities section below. Some examples of these hidden areas are shown in Attachment C. • The LMD is maintaining landscaping on major travel arteries to the freeway. There are two locations in LIVID 83-1 that the LIVID assessments are maintaining that truly stretch the concept and legitimacy of special benefit. These areas are along Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte from Pomerado Road west to the City of Poway border (Attachment D). Both of these major roadway segments collect and distribute traffic from all directions and have no unique connection or relationship to LIVID 83-1. Given the large subregional catchment area for traffic on these segments (traffic generated largely by neighborhoods outside the LMDs, Target Center shoppers, and hospital/medical office visitors), it's likely that LIVID property owners account for a very small percentage of users. The Committee feels strongly that inclusion of these roadway segments in the LMDs, along with some of the hidden areas discussed above, suggests that there be some reconsideration of what constitutes fair share funding between the LMDs and the City. • Making the LIVID landscape areas sustainable will require a capital infusion as the current path is not sustainable. In the current fiscal year, the City has allocated $100,000 to the two LMDs for emergency tree removal and $165,530 in supplemental water from the general fund over and above its annual general benefit funding because the LMDs lack sufficient funding to cover expenses. Meanwhile maintenance levels have been reduced from weekly to every other week for LIVID 86-1, and to once a month for LIVID 83-1, the tree problem continues to get worse, water costs continue to go up, irrigation systems continue to age, debris clutters the ground, and fire and safety risks are left unaddressed. For the LMDs to become sustainable in the long- term, most of the maintained areas will need to be restored to a status that is manageable. Such a restoration will require the infusion of significant amounts of capital funding. • The LMDs will require City financial support to achieve stability. There is not enough funding through current assessments to address deferred maintenance, let alone rehabilitate and restore lost landscaping. As was evident during the past failed ballot, even with significantly increased assessments, most of the funding would need to go toward clean-up and maintenance of the existing degraded landscaping, and it would be an undetermined number of years before the LMDs could build up enough capital to even begin to address rehabilitation and restoration. Without the promise of rehabilitation in the short-term, the Committee firmly believes that a second ballot attempt would be fruitless. The last experience taught us that LIVID property owners will need to know not only what is planned, but also when it will occur the next time 11 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 they are asked to increase their assessments. For these reasons, the LMDs will require City financial support to reach a state of maintenance, cost and funding stability for both the LMDs and the City in the future. COMMITTEE MAINTENANCE PRIORITIES The Committee's long term goal is to reduce (or at least control increases in) ongoing maintenance costs to the extent possible. Each LIVID contains a number of maintained areas. By identifying maintenance priorities by area, the level of maintenance effort (i.e. costs) can be tailored to each area based on factors such as visibility, degree of special benefit, type of landscaping, etc. Most maintained areas are linear areas adjacent to the major arterials while many others are smaller, independent sites scattered throughout the LMDs. Given that many the areas being maintained by the LMDs are disjointed, hidden, and/or provide limited special benefit to the broader LMDs, the Committee evaluated each maintained area and developed recommendations for an appropriate maintenance level of service and/or maintenance funding responsibility. Based on our tour of the LMDs, the Committee assigned one of the following categories to each maintained area: • Level of Service A = Generally once a week maintenance / 3 times a week watering • Level of Service B = Generally twice a month maintenance / 1 time a week watering • level of Service C = Generally once a month maintenance / 1 time a week watering • Level of Service D = Generally once or twice a year maintenance / 0-1 time a week watering • Shift to City = Shift the cost of maintaining the area to City funded responsibility with City determining the level of maintenance required NOTE: Currently, LMD 86-1 receives Level of Service B while LIVID 83-1 receives Level of Service C, both reductions from LOS A in past years. Level of Service D is a newly defined service category. "Shift to City" would shift the cost to maintain areas with very focused (i.e., individual property) or no special benefits to City funding responsibility to help address the fair share funding issue. Attachment E details the Committee's maintenance level of service and financial responsibility recommendations. In general, the Committee proposes that Level of Service (LOS) A and B be applied to the highest visibility areas along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road. We recommend that the linear areas along these primary roadways be maintained at LOS B except at entrances to the neighborhoods where our proposal is to rehabilitate entrance landscaping and maintain it at LOS A, if financially feasible. There are 7 neighborhood entrances (14 corners) along Twin Peaks Road in LIVID 83-1 and approximately 11 entrances (20 corners) along Espola Road in LIVID 86-1 that are candidates for entrance landscape rehabilitation as shown in Attachment F. These entrances provide a solid nexus to special benefit in the LMDs and the Committee believes their rehabilitation will provide the strongest incentive for property owners to support a new assessment ballot. These linear and entrance areas would continue to be the long term maintenance responsibility of the LMDs. Other maintained areas were evaluated individually for proposed LOS based on location, degree of special vs. general benefit, and physical characteristics. The Committee's conclusions are that there are approximately 353,000 12 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 square feet (out of 1.2 million total square feet) in LMD 83-1A, and 5,200 square feet (out of 1.1 million square feet) in LMD 86-1 that the Committee recommends be "shifted" to the City for fair share maintenance funding responsibility. The Committee believes that increasing the City's ongoing financial participation in line with the costs to maintain secondary areas within the LMDs will help address the inequity concerns expressed by property owners and be a positive factor in a future re -balloting campaign. COMMITTEE PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The LMD Advisory Committee recommends that the City partner with the LMDs to fund a strategy that will support efforts to secure a successful ballot for increased LMD assessments. While the strategy assumes higher investments by the City in the early years, it is geared toward reducing and stabilizing City funding in the long term. The Committee believes that a strategy for a successful ballot will be dependent on commitments to property owners to the following: • Rehabilitating neighborhood entrances where the nexus to special benefit is strongest within the first 2-3 years after a successful re -ballot. The rehabilitation would be based on specific drought tolerant design plans prepared for up to 18 neighborhood entrances within the LMDs. • Ongoing removal and maintenance of trees along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road to improve aesthetics and fire and life safety, and to reduce and stabilize ongoing maintenance costs for both the City and the LMDs in the long term. • Rehabilitating the aging irrigation system throughout the LMDs to improve watering efficiency and reduce/stabilize long term maintenance costs. • Establishing maintenance priorities for maintained areas to reduce ongoing maintenance costs and create sustainable LMD maintenance in the future. • Preparing a Landscape Master Plan (conceptual and design drawings) for the LMDs reflecting the above four points to provide property owners with the vision for the future. • Increasing the City's financial contribution to address the real and perceived inequity between special benefit and general benefit, including shifting the costs to maintain some areas within the LMDs identified as having little or no nexus to special benefit to the LMDs to City funding responsibility. • Capital Funding from the City to jump-start the entrance and irrigation system rehabilitation after a successful ballot. The Committee proposes that this capital funding be a combination of direct funding and City loans to the LMDs. • LMD Advisory Committee Campaign to actively develop and undertake an outreach and communication program prior to re -balloting to provide information, address questions, and promote the benefits of an assessment increase to property owners in each LMD. The specific recommendations to implement the strategy are generally divided between pre-LMD re -ballot (short term or next 18-24 months) and post-LMD re -ballot (longer term or years 3+ assuming a successful re -ballot) as presented below. 13 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Pre -Ballot Short Term Proposals and Recommendations The short term proposals and recommendations would occur before an assessment re -balloting in 2021. These recommendations will require City funding in Years 1 and 2. • Tree Removal: The Advisory Committee recommends that the City provide funding for a more aggressive tree removal and maintenance program along Twin Peaks Road and Espola Road. The Committee's goal for Twin Peaks Road is to remove dead trees and smaller sprouts by the end of Year 1 and at least 25% of the trees (primarily the mid-size off -shoots and diseased trees) by the end of Year 2. The goal for Espola Road is to thin and remove the overgrown and unsafe trees over the next two years. Removing trees will improve aesthetics, begin to address fire and life safety issues, and demonstrate to LIVID property owners a sense of shared responsibility by the City along these major arterials to bring the trees back to a state that will be manageable for the LMDs over the long term. The LMD Advisory Committee will help the City identify priorities for tree removal (using criteria such as tree density, proximity to roadways, sidewalks and property lines, tree heights and diameters, etc.). There are several potential opportunities to offset the costs of a City funding investment in tree removal and maintenance in the LMDs: City grant application - City staff has applied for a $2 million Hazard Mitigation Grant from the California Office of Emergency Services and Federal Emergency Management Agency for Fuel Load Modification. If the grant application is successful, it will require a $500,000 City match. While the grant application is for City-wide purposes, the application justification includes the issues and needs of the LMDs. There is a possibility that City funding committed to tree removal and maintenance in the LMDs over the next several years could apply fully or partially to the required local match. The LIVID Advisory Committee strongly supports the City's grant application to address the tree maintenance and safety needs of both the LMDs and broader City. Honor camp employment - Another opportunity involves the City's ability to employ honor camps for approximately $200 a day to begin removal of smaller tree off -shoots and debris and underbrush. The use of honor camps for this purpose could help jump- start the effort at a very reasonable cost. • Supplemental Water: The City contributed $165,500 from the General Fund toward the cost of water for the two LMDs in the current fiscal year - a period during which watering frequency was significantly reduced. The Committee recommends that the City continue to provide supplemental funding for LIVID water costs, at a 5% annual escalation to reflect increases in water rates, to help stem further deterioration and loss of landscaping and healthy trees in the short term. The overarching strategy to rehabilitate both landscaping and irrigation systems (thereby reducing water needs) is anticipated to ultimately reduce future demands on water in the long term. • Landscape Master Plan: The Committee believes that a landscape plan is critical to the success of a future LIVID re -ballot as it would demonstrate to property owners the benefits resulting from an increased assessment. The Committee recommends that a conceptual Landscape Master Plan be prepared over the next year so that it is available to the Advisory Committee leading up to a re -ballot information campaign. The conceptual plan would define the 14 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 landscape rehabilitation pallets for the entrances as well as appropriate landscaping strategies for the arterial areas between entrances. (More detailed implementation design plans would be prepared after a successful ballot). The plan would also take into account identified maintenance area priorities. The Landscape Master Plan would be the basis for estimating the capital rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance costs, which would then be used to identify the increased assessment levels for a re -ballot. • Model Entrances: To help overcome past resistance to assessment increases, the Committee recommends that the City fund a "model" entrance in each LIVID to demonstrate to property owners what they will get for an increase in their assessments. The ability to point to an in -the - ground example will help both the Committee and City communicate benefits through sites that have clear special benefit links to the neighborhoods. The model entrance would be defined in the Landscape Master Plan and would include drought tolerant landscaping to control both water and maintenance costs. • Re -Balloting: As the re -balloting approaches at the end of Year 2, there are activities that will need to occur that will require financial support from the City, including: o Communications Activities -Advisory Committee funding to prepare informational materials (i.e., fact sheets, flyers, signage, notices, adverts) to enable the Committee to take on the role of advocates. Engineer's Report - Preparation or updating of the Engineer's Report as required by Proposition 218. Re -balloting - Balloting activities, including preparation and printing of the ballots, ballot mailing, and staff time associated with the distribution, collection and tallying of the ballots. In addition, the City is required to provide general benefit funding to the LMDs per Proposition 218. In the current year, that contribution is $111,700 for both LMDs. The Committee recommends that the City continue its practice of increasing its general benefit contribution annually in accordance with the CPI for Years 1 and 2. LIVID assessment revenues would continue at the flat amount of $433,500 per year. The Year 1 and 2 short term recommendations described above support activities that the Committee believes will contribute to a successful re -ballot in 2021 (proposed to be conducted toward the end of Year 2). The Advisory Committee has estimated the level of funding necessary to undertake the Year 1 and 2 activities as shown in Attachment G. The recommended City funding to support these activities is approximately $525,000 in Year 1 and $425,000 in Year 2 (totaling $950,000 in addition to the City's general benefit contribution). Post -Ballot Longer -Term Proposals and Recommendations While some City funded activities will likely need to continue after a re -ballot regardless of the ballot outcome, other proposals and recommendations would be dependent on, and implemented after, a successful re -balloting in 2021. The Advisory Committee believes that City commitments to financially support these post ballot recommendations will be critical to bolstering support for increased 10 15 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 assessments during the campaign leading up to a re -ballot. Such commitments will ensure assessed property owners that the benefits associated with an increased assessment will, in fact, be realized: • Tree Removal: To achieve the goal to remove 50% of the trees along Twin Peaks Road, tree removal will likely need to continue through at least Years 3 and 4. (To address fire and life safety issues, the Committee recommends that the City continue to provide tree removal funding to the LMDs regardless of the outcome of the re -ballot.) Again, funding for this activity may be able to be applied as local match for the hazard mitigation grant discussed above. • Supplemental Water: Assuming the re -ballot is successful, new LMD assessments should be sufficient to cover the cost of water, particularly as water -saving landscaping and more efficient irrigation systems are implemented. However, should the re -ballot fail, the Committee recommends that the City continue to provide supplemental water funding to the LMDs to fend off any further deterioration of the remaining vegetation. • Landscape Maintenance Plan Design Drawings: Assuming a successful re -ballot, specific design plans will need to be prepared for the rehabilitation of neighborhood entrances, arterial areas, and irrigation systems. These drawings will be based on the conceptual Landscape Master Plan prepared in Year 1, prior to the re -ballot. The Committee recommends that the City fund the design drawings to support implementation of the rehabilitation projects. • Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities: As discussed previously, the Committee has identified a number of maintained areas within the LMDs that have weak nexus to broader LMD special benefit. These areas are candidates to shift to City maintenance responsibility. If it's not feasible to remove these areas from the LMDs, the Committee recommends that the City increase its financial contribution to the LMDs by an amount equivalent to the cost of maintaining these sites. • Capital Funding to Rehabilitate Entrances, Arterials, and Irrigation Systems: The Committee recommends that the City establish a mechanism, prior to a re -ballot, that ensures some level of one-time capital funding to help rehabilitate the neighborhood entrances, arterials, and irrigation systems in Years 3-5 should the re -ballot be successful. The Committee views this commitment as critical to the success of the re -ballot because our findings, as discussed previously, indicate that lack of commitment, uncertainty, and distrust about when actual benefits of re -landscaping would be realized played a significant role in the defeat of the previous ballot. The cost for capital rehabilitation would be an outcome of the Landscape Master Plan but is anticipated to be in the range of $725,000 over 3-4 years. The Committee proposes that a portion of this funding could be provided to the LMDs as a loan to be repaid over an extended period. Proposed LIVID assessment increases would then be calculated to ensure sufficient revenues for ongoing maintenance, capital reserves and loan repayment. Lastly, the City's required general benefit contribution will continue regardless of the re -ballot outcome. The Engineer's Report prepared for the failed ballot recommended an increase in the City's general benefit contribution for the two LMDs to 10% or $140,000 a year (escalated annually). The Committee recommends that the City provide a general benefit contribution of at least $140,000 beginning in Year 3, regardless of ballot outcome, and continue its practice of escalating its general benefit contribution. 11 16 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 The Advisory Committee has estimated the level of funding necessary to undertake the Years 3, 4 and 5 activities as shown in Attachment G. The estimated City funding to support these activities is approximately $384,000 in Year 3, $235,000 in Year 4 and $137,000 in Year 5 (totaling $756,000 in addition to the City's general benefit contribution). All of the long term line item funding estimates will need to be revisited after a successful re -ballot. The intent of both the short and long term recommendations is that by Year 6, ongoing annual City funding to support the LMDs would consist solely of the City's general benefit contribution and funding support for those maintained areas shifted to City maintenance responsibility, the combination of which would be well below City funding provided in the current fiscal year. LMD ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITMENT TO CITY Based on funded recommendations in the Years 1 and 2 and a commitment from the City to financially support the activities recommended in Years 3-6, the Advisory Committee is committed to work toward a successful LMD re -ballot that includes increased assessments to support long term maintenance. Future activities for the Advisory Committee include: • Creating Advisory Committee subcommittees to continue to support the City and staff with: o Identifying trees for removal o Refining maintenance priorities o Preparation of the Landscape Master Plan o Implementing "Model" entrances o Preparation of a new or updated Engineer's Report o Developing new LMD budgets, including projected costs (both one-time capital and ongoing maintenance costs) and required revenues (assessment levels and City funding) • Actively campaigning for new (increased) LMD assessments leading up to the re -balloting, including: 1J Creating an outreach and communications plan o Preparing fact sheets in plain language o Hosting Open Houses o Canvassing neighborhoods o Responding to property owner questions/concerns Growing a base of supporters to help with outreach and communications • Establishing a volunteer LMD patrol to monitor landscape maintenance/contractor performance and to alert the City to maintenance issues to ensure that maintenance doesn't return to a state that it is unsustainable for the LMDs. THE RISKS OF DOING NOTHING - PART 2 As discussed toward the beginning of this report, there are potential risks to the City of inaction. Because the Advisory Committee understands that the proposed costs of "doing something" are significant, the Committee tried to estimate the financial impact to the City should we not move forward with a strategy to try to achieve a successful re -ballot. The Advisory Committee assumed that unless the 12 17 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1 City decides to completely withdraw financial support for emergency tree maintenance (which has its own risks), at least current levels of City funding for emergency tree maintenance would likely continue for the foreseeable future. In addition, to prevent both the trees and remaining landscaped areas from deteriorating further, City funding for supplemental water would likely need to continue. The City's general benefit contribution would also continue, increasing at least by current escalation rates. The risk of doing nothing along could also trigger the additional risk that the LMDs dissolve completely because there would no longer be any special benefit received from deteriorated, non-existent landscaping. Dissolution of the LMDs would result in loss of current levels of LIVID assessments. As the Advisory Committee sees it, the three scenarios for the LMDs currently before the City are: • Pursue a strategy (preferably the Advisory Committee's recommended strategy) to rehabilitate and stabilize the LMDs and bolster the chance of a successful re -ballot (Attachment G) • Do -Nothing and continue to indefinitely provide reduced maintenance levels, and emergency tree and supplemental water funding, at an annual escalating rate, in addition to the City's general benefit contribution (Attachment H). This scenario results in heightened fire and safety risks, and may lead to further deterioration of existing landscaping due to low levels of maintenance. • Do Nothing to the point where the LMDs dissolve due to loss of any special benefit to the assessed properties from deteriorated landscaping. If the LMDs dissolve, it would result in loss of LIVID assessments and the transfer of full maintenance responsibility and costs to the City. Attachment B again graphically displays the projected costs to the City for each of the above scenarios. It shows that City financial support in the first 3-4 years leads to significantly lower ongoing costs to the City over the long term. Doing nothing results in gradually escalating costs for tree maintenance, water and general benefit contribution. If the LMDs dissolve as a result of loss of special benefit, the cost to the City spikes as it is forced to assume the $433,000 in funding each year that the LMDs currently provide. As the City Council considers the costs to the City of the recommended strategy over the next several years, it should be pointed out that the net costs to the City would be significantly less than the Advisory Committee's recommended funding. Net costs reflect the recommended strategy costs offset by the cost of doing nothing that would occur anyway. The estimated net funding associated with the Advisory Committee recommendations is shown in Attachment H. It shows that total net City funding recommended to support the Advisory Committee strategy (including the City's general benefit contribution) is approximately $550,000 over four years, and that by Year 5, the annual funding obligation of the City is projected to be less under the recommended strategy than under a do nothing scenario. 13 18 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A LIVID 83-1 and LIVID 86-1 Advisory Committee Members Attachment B: Projected City Funding for Recommended, Do -Nothing, LMDs Dissolved Scenarios Attachment C: Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas Attachment D: Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte Maintained Areas Attachment E: Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area Attachment F: LMD Neighborhood Entrance Locations Attachment G: Advisory Committee Strategy Recommended City Funding Table Attachment H: Do -Nothing Scenario Projected Funding Required 14 19 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1 Attachment A LIVID 83-1 and LIVID 86-1 Advisory Committee Members Toni Bates, Chair Dennis Christian H. Speer Ezzard Terry Heck Robert Hinzman Timothy Jara Phillip Kissling Dan Mathson John McCormick, Vice Chair Steve Meyer David Narevsky Rob Weber Alan Wilson 15 20 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 $121nA0D i 1.000.000 \ir!{f l,iNyl City Funding Amount $400000 $mQ000 Attachment B Projected City Funding Recommended, Do -Nothing, LMDs Dissolved Scenarios (LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Combined( So 1 IT - 0 1 2 3 I S 6 7 8 9 10 Faur IM 16 City LMD Funding Contribution Do Nothing'. City Funding No Rehabgitation —Advi o yComm,"" Recommendation City Funding with Rehabilitation LMDMwKed. City Funding No RehabJrtaton Nrn,. The Con, s general benefit io u,.d n ..r luded rn the taurrs aLwve 21 Of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment C Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas In LIVID 83-1 17 22 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 LMD 83-1 A: Adobe Ridge 2 c i � r VUI y � ► s` 7, .,,. 't .t r � o cP '1 Irrigation Controller ^' 0 75 150 300 Feel I V I i I i I 18 23 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item *5.1 LMD 83-1A: Country Creek IM r' ]f •. _TWIN PEAKS RD * Irrigation Controller 0 100 200 400 Feet I I I J R 7i. N k - 24 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment D Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte LIVID Maintained Areas M SAN D4 1 Q \ i i a A y� • 3 e r w e , ' u +�a Qo �J 25 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment E LIVID Advisory Committee Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 contra d On pop 2 11 26 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1 Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 Arw Mn LMA LW LOSE I RNvn LOSC I LOSo MCM, Cin hrrvee hoerq Son EPWMTE A,* Celt ISQFr A CrRwa Aa Martla 1 Ope,,spacer D. I -I Deedwrierof lsao9 $011 7 • ce/ lbetnt need weer or much mwrcerurr 3766 Soil 3 • ce/ Doesnt need *error much mwneume 9296 $0.11 4 • Seutbree Camro del None w. t arc to fn, way 6316 72955 $0.1 S Cawno eel Norte rrcdun/IAa r tnonuedam to fnrerwir, 26Q1 50.7 9. Adertre R91, 2 1 z • Op,, e/ Demn.1 need weer or myth marRenarce 17937 50.1 2 • •OW N,,ce I Deesan need wale w much murterurce 17167 $01 3 • In wdww 50.1 4 • fymeam} still. S • Plornarado 50.1 6 • Pow da caner $0.1 7 • pcnwaftfftntw $0.1 6 • Ailed " M I 1008 to prowtv I optrc,n'. to$0 7653 $0.11 C. AdDW RdS, 1 1 • a Southp& C ft NwWWw fhpnxaR to f,,enW 91124 So.1 o. Celonw 1 • Etta Ke to d lwobohocel 50.1 7 • Enbaree to orNe0bodw o0 $0.11 3 • Pp ft rRd4R n hent of TaqW C~ 101 6017 50.2 E. T•d W rrs Pkft 1 • Ma ttnro fare to lrwwa No IPKWI belfd to LNO 0172 50.11 2 • Ma ttromumPlam to hwt No VeCQI beneM M LMD 41031 Wa 3 • NO o' WNefd to LNO 20412 50.11 F. Rwcho ArbDkft 2 1 II -M1jW1hDMuO18MtOfrftw• Give to car t$ejmrtment to m ntar,,VNen to Arbo&l Rah 36743 $0.1 2 II GR some or all to Crty pe ft depantment ro mtnnm 22610 $0.11 G.RKb Albo9ba3 1 a N@Wftdwod mmme• $0.11 2 a wV4Ke 50.11 3 a AM'wrb•ray' Iwr6c • rota nwrod erArnce So.l l 4 • • byUsto Teter kab Rdtmmt 4r94 nepr Y 1 $0.11 S • • OW460d Tway Rab Rdtwarw ImaWwrtenel 50.11 6 • entnree 50.1 N. R No ArbMtof 1 1 I • Tcb f>rde Rd tw, arca m. r anerul $0.1 2 entrerce 50.1 3 MNun of na r anceul IT rnn halo n from of Teepee C~ 16116 3121 $0. Rarcltu Artohoc4 1 a fteqrtrorfood emrarce $0.1 2 a Twn R•b Rd tree, am& wjorMeru' SD.1 3 Twm Veatr Rd tree, aM vejor inert•' Sol 4 a Mf ,hood en[nrce 50.1 S keqwtromope entrance 50.1 6 • ero.m. $D.i 7 • ennnce 1 $0.1 f. Rarche ArbWrtos S I a Tt•n Raka Rd tree arta / ma r arteria' 50.1 2 a Twn Rab Re -------- 50.1 3 1 N etrarcr SDA 4 t N etnrce SDI 5 Twn Rab W tree arta / ma r anenal 50.1 contra d On pop 2 11 26 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1 R. wrOeYM H, •n• 1771 51 Proposed Landscape Maintenance PriorWes by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 Or.Intwr jEk- Be Sdhomf/off onn/ OPoon Remove from LW or return to SOOD Sall u ! 12 emance w••d CYrtgl Sell u 6• 2 • f Ne�fEorhood erVwc• iwn Peaks Rd bRe•rR• f• 9t u 5011 .1S 1 6• N .hood erRrNce N mood •nnr[w 2 5011 5011 L RM H• 1Nmow 1 pith wnn frees on Twin hats Rd 1 $0.11 brew D q! d 1 NN.ow Path wnn lren on l wn teaks Rd 2 5011 Y GNR 1Nanow 6 NIS w,th .net on l wnn Peaks Rd I. $011 ! • Dfw Ortch N.nd Mme fenn.0 bn RRurn lO fl 6001 so ll 1 7Drarnare d ' Ql rtOt W Wft iNtle inM "Oolv." edea ••'lW wdrddroton6nyrnwgpefor mNnaeryrtce of three Mega Tley waW yeRlw rerrraved Iqm N L W or [he f dr wood connwn ruS&SR IO the L W Wsed an •'pr sponte foot' cost "7M pMlr� 111WId Ce On i MP•nte YM4Ie LOS 6MdC enc ..Rant fgmtne 0021. 1036 CouYn ee n ICKOn o sed [M adsm Commmee Onch hehnd Mme fenn. Ogwn Rnum to C • • M th EehiM Mme across from Sone I. , "I 50.11 .11 S • Nawow IS eh trees sir Tara Randa Rd $0.11 N. Rio Cor I • Nanow th wdh tuna iww Peaks Rd $all 1 • Comer of twin Peaks R d and EWo4t senna roue fer[es sail S [ Nanow th wAh tree a E 11 0. hw• 16 1 • Emnme/Snug ana aro C Rd. ugss farts) Par! .11 ! [ Entnne SmM ana ab C Rd •cess lrern KRea IM ]1 1 • On NOe ftnetR Scl LW qes. Pq M W*Mlg rot MLW 1179 50.11 P Mldl"E W limearto, urip a mdwn Rd. it O. Dwdrn• I • DRnrce ant lnkee my owl MWaro Rd Sall 1 • "Mme ands 11 wy • M0 Rd 50.11 R ftftvww I It Deana soil 2 • mooa•n• 5011 S RrOoMea/wUIY 1 • Deana 5011 1 • N od•rt• sail 1 • N rModirta 5011 6 • N mood ana $0.11 toW 43- JA OtN toW 61.16 OnIV tow FIwj 111091 11065 mim LOS 66e11WOO s 1 6Wr11•nroR S1 51 toss 26 I Lose 0• uerr Caf•rol u 21 12 2 w••d CYrtgl 26 u 6 2 u 6 1 7 6 2 1 0 aRN cdr 1 2 1 brew D q! d 1 1 2 hscfd RSm N u 6 0 I. 21 0 w eeY 3 1 1 0 ' Ql rtOt W Wft iNtle inM "Oolv." edea ••'lW wdrddroton6nyrnwgpefor mNnaeryrtce of three Mega Tley waW yeRlw rerrraved Iqm N L W or [he f dr wood connwn ruS&SR IO the L W Wsed an •'pr sponte foot' cost "7M pMlr� 111WId Ce On i MP•nte YM4Ie LOS 6MdC enc ..Rant fgmtne 0021. 1036 CouYn ee n ICKOn o sed [M adsm Commmee 2) 27 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 LMD Advisory Committee Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 86-1 Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area L MO B6-1 iMWMPYI 23 28 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1 1 [ a ---- 10YMInWIT MINM MrWR ADMIIT a [ a 10 IYIYIUT MIKN MIWR MOtRIT l Y lylTabYWwof 1 a a M■pYIT WTM11IM1R l [ [ MMlwl■wQ(OM(f CYFFWiIDY YYII All 'r • a Ifi1X ■fI■ItWTTOY tl •r _ • I Y IYa•rNX iM Tx 1 [ l a YCOIYtNDDURIad iO MOMa1v OW1Etl YKUSSIW ) a • 1 YIINIMTMIK[CDIIX[IICMtFWTIpY WHRYMOtlIMI'r _ f 1 f a MTN INMMK[<OM111<MYEWLIOY MNMTNN[D•TIMI'r 1 Y S Y YV / ap YCM1HWtMl I'CPW[f W`�tONt•i •r f F Y Yb YAM• Y I a ) i • 1M1x111gNKC COY1F11 GY1NWilOY MNXTYMFD.allM1'r • 1 ■ f • MTM IMiWKt (DIYM 4MWTTOY YYM\YNIOaT IIYFI'r f • MiM]INIaNRECWM(AnFWRTOY YNNIYXCDaiIMI'r 1[ Ip re Y yM1YY I a t xtIMTMK([yI1NlIICMHOURIp Y_MMMINNfO•TIMI'•' ■ MTxt[M1MNCt (plXe RT YYNMINN[D•i l'r 1 a a MTxIIRMXCt COMIII CNM1IWIiOY MNNTYYO.1lM 'r t I�eYY •NNXIILF� anw I 1 I [ 1 ■ • a ■ 1 • MMlN1WKICpl1(tCMNWIiOY YYMIYMIp•l1M 'r f [ a WI!•YfxY 1D1l ONCW MTM IIW MCaU a I Ylia laYfMNYIAf[OMYNMTM yV )Ip(Il S IYDD ION UYI 4 a ! a lD f.wxr Y■wwY I • sm Nil I [ YCOIYYYIpIMfACx 10CO, YLL 11f9YNRtOaDSYdP1 I 1 YCOYtM)pUM!•Cx TOCuI Y f•C al9YNRXI.Ora[ iMWMPYI 23 28 of 33 March 19. 2019. Item #5.1 eel t01 MM4mm• b..ryrem Mv ,... a e......,,... v v n r.cmem v a v e 1 v a e I i 1 0 MrCeMm� a I 1 _ bm. lrrn cy. a I 1 1 4wap rywE 4.er II Il a O 1 1 0 •' ) 1 0 • Lb M �rlY tlwa4r. ••6NntiNal ••. en +eJl m bTr Y np,K bww4Vme i 11�e�e�. ILIV�W YaYYrwr�iewrYY WDerr W �e�Y#AMe 1�\Y dtr 4YDle�are l� IMeA Y1• o!. r..�e.erA w,ilYOsa Y�ftlreY t•e.aC Ona .. em. w. it IDu[�wa W60• we faewre Inc in t01 MM4mm• b..ryrem 71 29 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Mv ,... a e......,,... v v n r.cmem v a v e 1 v a e I i 1 0 MrCeMm� a I 1 _ bm. lrrn cy. a I 1 1 4wap rywE 4.er II Il a O 1 1 0 •' ) 1 0 • Lb M �rlY tlwa4r. ••6NntiNal ••. en +eJl m bTr Y np,K bww4Vme i 11�e�e�. ILIV�W YaYYrwr�iewrYY WDerr W �e�Y#AMe 1�\Y dtr 4YDle�are l� IMeA Y1• o!. r..�e.erA w,ilYOsa Y�ftlreY t•e.aC Ona .. em. w. it IDu[�wa W60• we faewre 71 29 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment F LIVID 83-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations o o� z Espola Rd*Oct I I 1.. I vY P.M," pY A,unwwoD s 0 5 ¢ S 2 e' � Q 9 ca opc,ou,oa i z a r 25 30 of 33 March 19. 2019, Item #5.1 E 3 I li . W ■ _ j 44 II r Elul .4 - s > J ^ / 4 1� i Attachment G Advisory Committee Strategy Recommended City Funding Table (LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1) LVID 83-1 nem )ei M.11, .�$ m9/M waR r9mm leas Faun 1{a. yrs "nn. Y..6 R Z./IS yw) RY2s/8 12 VVUM 9.9 R Ift," Tree Pemwal ill 100,000 1m Am IMO" 25,000 SuppW.t,WW.,2 1)d,n) 119567 115345 Mndwpe M»ter wn.l, IOAM 25000 Mog1 m[ma 4" lmuexYn u.o mmmetee [pnm�naa[lax fuadb ISAO SAO Re Oalblin lNeaa frtrcer'a PeprE 4a44rcd Ma�memnre NU Pe MN UpW RMad3ubm for fnbangflYd.l 1151 [.mal Renaa.alwn b,lvmEnm,o,nbxbn l[I 17,500 EPO "Pot 15,800 47,174 . m 54"7 5 53 N 56 D N•E• 000 ?SAM SMOMI $4000 laanb,Cp *ReN kart n,b JUSOMI 162.50M37,500 saftm 0400dYGeneM BmeM Cawromxn' 59 !W-92!5686715 563658 %S.SM 567.535 569.%1 5)1¢.8$73797 S]6 11 SID 91 )ax tp EmdnE l4aommenaee •eeneol8erc6p $228.833 $3.67. $3.1960 R%.958 $275,242 $IM674 $119.608 S123,196 SMA92 $110,699 $134 WD 13.1 NrearmeM Reeenq, x. $XI1.N 5]01b" 5301,6.0 NII.}00 Ni3.5% 54%24} N".3}9 $"3A1Y9 NM,693 $.0991 $505.7}. LMD 86-1 Tree Pemwal __ meow w»er _ Ia,iope M»u�PYn 1 _ Rb`IFnOance Nea lnxMx�m wowl %240 300.000 WAW 56$51 ISAO WO Wbt 9qe %00 35,000 }5000 IIr10 Gmm.tee comm,n.xbM fax SAO IY { E4w F.t,rce/f PepurE 17.500 Pl Mbme"na Nea R.q "*.,111 600 616 63) 6% 675 696 716 RMaWatlm b�fnnanq,lm w xbn1151 CaeYx Relu9aYtla, b�Nm-Fnnanae lr,9x.or1 sl I 000 I wp 50000 S0 Ipnb4pE/PeNtibxm .. 71 S.00fII 250.000 $101 GsrY GneM1 Cgnrbgbn pl S.e,]6) 5",VO N9b15 $76.123 $78,.0]' 580.759 583.181 A 588 47 $% 95 "I'll Tqb C.y rlxdr9lGcgn,naaaea•Gra[aI GIaM) $118.12♦ $IS}A10 $2016767 5226.)13 $2]9,0]5 $181.395 583,07 52 WD L34fe»m.M P»r.,arff l8) $]336760 $131)0 Sn1e60 $512.000 55]7.360 SN3.1R1 $559.1)6 SSM261 S59]j N33255 $629b95 LMD 83-1 and LMD 861 TMP»noeel l Iso 150 EMD GIbE V. Iw,Mo 50,00 Ym Wb»121 wLwd Iwo) 167,.9] Mndu Mater pM 131 $006700 50,000 _ _ MOCeI Fnnmae Mea Inrtlxm 50.000 IMD Ummkue ConmulkaabnEW»r 20670(2 Pe BYbmv { Ner E,�I,�ei a Deport SSAW ft.4 4MMmerwrt Nea Pepma1WY1141 4pnalRMwrudm brfnpam[Ibd.l bn (5 _ .6,.W 4],79} 49.226 SQA3 S21U 53 SS $7 1 00 175670 fyblPMebllaxm br GmFnpely In 251 ICK06M =PC I 1pu,b faplW R.XVaf (61 1137,500) U7 .500 a��r 53R3 SM,9]. $IYM $15})41 $157 25 S16I $:Iw 6 $171913 0 GKfel PenOt CgbMPbn 17S111R6 $2156778 5118530 Tadt i GagIO.MM aGbxaal Gale" $3)]256 563BA" $N6A]7 5179]66 $285,019 $203,"Sj 52M.SUI SWAM 5222320 $IM3]9 7gdwo4 ...R..18) 1 N33 N3330 $133300 - '.n>9423 $267"6706 $1.039PM SIA7D 1.1 5 10}3" SI.Il5Al0 +•Amon IS .1 C...'. Btl}ES fa SMD RdNary [dmmlWe Oa4 RtlWY19 R{gba fwlRW tL1 aW IMDil: LJ . Eull p pMIY bI, m LMp Rpm Gry I111n axe Wrrtnt Yab,Orywcmblpulillf$S0A00Iw acn IMDb.mnb.ma[rae r»„w» EutweMr prpp»aw v W,mmetMa Mto S15DA0 (SIM" to 83�1.M 5$0.110010WI)uM,1 t. mFgmarce,f ft .Iw "WF[oBe"tSI.%megY1gtX»!abft[muYYapplldtptNGry's rmure6 batmxa 1n0V1enMs,CGfsM,ntMNuaM MnifallMfraM pqk»1pn Q) fuM1„P aw+dM bl Gry in VM CuneM lev to [w(• wlv mNs = SI65.5301511I,B]3lpr LMp 861 • $51,65] be 1M01611 4funb eso W,pn rab d SWYear ba Ygtn,n Yeah 1 an6 2 pr,q m mW Ib[v,6. 4tum» [ugnElul reylb[ wauY 1,1[re»e lMpnuffinen[L xmYn»Iry IM neM Ia G[Y wppMnmtal pl» lundry P) Nwm». mmpir,M MrMf»p. Mat» »an p,b 6e preprld Iq pMX LMDa, Tb.rebe, IM tqx mN 1f f V I quaXY 6eE,aRen lMp M)pglafucmiNl yRq Me,wum»Gry vwY[pnr meMerungmftE br a,w WmI11N DEtMMrlagy(nmq,nw»n»ryleaeL was tp LM0 Mepal6enMh 4»rafe mrn[anYRe MU,n melMG 6AYr b rwM» melon area ISQie/sPAI aM o[ner rl(ImaM�gy I5a-11/70 R.1. In 6l-1, iXe xxnd.e ace» roW apprm�mrtbY 353.100 quxeka1131IA00 M O.1 Vw P minlmage coil aM 41670 pl[l S0IVap1l m,n Me[m113q 861.[neMkpne arMdappmmatby S,riMNR.a50.11/p.R. 4lM0afnimmu»auu In EX,t y4rs.wuma rmb br Cn3'mYMmVKe b" raponubltla wuid euaua»samerae. F3alana nu awmtd to fa 3%. Qxw wlmbb dp nq lMlWeLMD83161 DI Eq MraMe rb,wnrtaron, »...nef apgmm».N 19 mbanm P,m L comes b $13,500 maadlwabn mNegn» oar m1w awn br. taal d Nl$,DDp Fq nrptam,Maeuuam, »wmb $ISOAOAMO bl Pawnn Dry wpuW loan 1X1 LMM .11 1" cab for aow r.X.Mlnrtron QI M tti oarlmt Yw. pry's Genera BmeM mntMMlm 1s $111.R615N.9" br 3"08;.1 •146,]67 b 1MD86p TXe Gry M Man waYpq ns cmnleutbn mn WRy M M OL 11,eraloq Mw yMti w�nba3%emalbalbbndme CM1yl Gar,1rb 11r,1P1 wntnWtan iM 3038 Erynaw�sPapwi rammmerWd atiry GmnalBmMt (mm6uomd10%.vbM �awmad rolse $206702%3,651 b VPD83�1 • $]6,2}3 M lMD M�11 X1d tlx blbt IOsad and nese avbimmu Gam ,n eRaq. TI,erlfon.6ap1nXlr nYear 31ww same" W1b[I. m. CXv � GrrM BmMt cmtwbutbn X w,mN io b In 6mpma Mtn 1X1 iD1a frylMYfs 8apyt. PI 4sum» lM0 mumu» q,va4q ro IMae prp»gad 1n tNe M1IIM 3016 MM, bunted i%mnuYM 27 32 of 33 March 19, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment H Do -Nothing Scenario Projected Funding Required (LVID 83-1 and LVID 86-1) Nb,sY J9 ]019 Lb YINq LMfq @9��Y0 ve r Iro.r`9.9[..brr Yw9�Y7 Nw.r. o.rl rwws.r I.ry r9�rru9nul.b uw9r1 n Iw w �.......� rw.Iwrbb f9om9 N �* u.oN... •..w........ Nw. w+..r ww..w..w Iww.....wl.w. b.r....,....9..., ov.-w ... �, ....bsr.�r.�ww..e a�w b.c.w.. •�. w.a.�rr w�rw.911L9» nkM9N wou 1.w Jsr N ulo �I� *ww+w r,.....r.. ww....,.+www. m n..w.. Yw.I�.brw.lcnwi rrww rr [h.W.:9wI1�w� br,.0 W.sb b IIl]A9 n.N 1 dam. w ..� I.ww� b 10.r ww w�..M. iw f1.9.mJ, n... �w IMw+W vwwb OIIwYrwwbYM 04w Y.[wwIMMOY.tiIs11•f965YM111>Ib bOil•S91i9)N IYDN II Y.iww w.n •/.ItV..w \•.� w'ww.bb.w.lNYbw,.w. ww,�Yww. M.. 28 33 of 33 March 19, 2019. Item #5.1