Loading...
Item 5.1 - Landscape Maintenance District WorkshopAugust 6, 2019, Item #5.1 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 August 6, 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. 7 of 51 ATTACHMENT A August 6, 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 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, LMD 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 LMD 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: 8 of 51 August 6, 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, LMD 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: o Perceived poor City management of LMDs that resulted in loss of landscaped areas, overgrown trees, and failure to anticipate future needs o 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 9 of 51 August 6, 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. o 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. o 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 10 of 51 August 6, 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 LMDs have somewhat different maintenance needs: o 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. o 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. 11 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 83-1 that the LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 86-1, and to once a month for LMD 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 LMD property owners will need to know not only what is planned, but also when it will occur the next time 12 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 LMD 83-1 and approximately 11 entrances (20 corners) along Espola Road in LMD 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 13 of 51 August 6, 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. 14 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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: o 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 LMD Advisory Committee strongly supports the City’s grant application to address the tree maintenance and safety needs of both the LMDs and broader City. o 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 LMD 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 LMD 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 15 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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. o Engineer’s Report – Preparation or updating of the Engineer’s Report as required by Proposition 218. o 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. LMD 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 16 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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. 17 of 51 August 6, 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: o 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 o 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 18 of 51 August 6, 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 LMD 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 LMD 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. 19 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A LMD 83-1 and LMD 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 20 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment A LMD 83-1 and LMD 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 21 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment B Projected City Funding Recommended, Do-Nothing, LMDs Dissolved Scenarios (LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Combined) 22 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment C Examples of Hidden Maintenance Areas In LMD 83-1 (highlighted in yellow) 23 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 24 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 25 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment D Ted Williams Parkway and Camino del Norte LMD Maintained Areas LMD 83-1A: Ted Williams Parkway 26 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment E LMD Advisory Committee Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D A. Gateway/LaManda 1 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 15409 $0.11 2 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 3766 $0.11 3 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 9296 $0.11 4 x x Southside Camino del Norte/Manor thoroughfare to freeway (83-1B) 22055 $0.11 5 x Camino del Norte median/Major thoroughfare to freeway 26421 $0.28 B. Adobe Ridge 2 1 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 27937 $0.11 2 x x Open space / Doesn't need water or much maintenance 13187 $0.11 3 x In neighborhood $0.11 4 x Pomerado frontage $0.11 5 x Pomerado frontage $0.11 6 x Pomerado frontage / Open space corner $0.11 7 x Pomerado frontage $0.11 8 x x Along drainage ditch / 100% private property / Option: LOS D 2653 $0.11 C. Adobe Ridge 1 1 x x Southside Camino del Norte/Manor thoroughfare to freeway 91124 $0.11 D. Colonies 1 x Entrance to Colony Dr. neighborhood $0.11 2 x Entrance to Colony Dr. neighborhood $0.11 3 x Pomerado medians in front of Target Center (83-1B)6887 $0.28 E. Ted Williams Pkwy 1 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 38172 $0.11 2 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 41031 $0.28 3 x Major thoroughfare to freeway / No special benefit to LMD 20432 $0.11 F. Rancho Arbolitos 2 1 x Give to City parks department to maintain/Next to Arbolitos Park 36743 $0.11 2 x Give some or all to City parks department to maintain 12610 $0.11 G. Rancho Arbolitos 3 1 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 2 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 3 x Add "entrance" landscaping although not a neighborhood entrance $0.11 4 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 5 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 6 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 H. Rancho Arbolitos 1 1 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 2 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 3 x Median of major arterial (Twin Peaks)/In front of Target Center (83-1B) 3121 $0.28 I. Rancho Arbolitos 4 1 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 2 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 3 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 4 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 5 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 6 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 7 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 J. Rancho Arbolitos 5 1 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 2 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 3 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 4 x Neighborhood entrance $0.11 5 x Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 SQ FT ESTIMATEComments LMD ResponsibilityArea No.Map Page Return to City On Private Property Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 continued on page 2 Avg. Cost / SQ FT 27 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Page 2 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D K. Woodland Hills 1 x x Behind home / off street / Option: Remove from LMD or return to City 5000 $0.11 2 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11 3 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11 4 x x (partially) Twin Peaks Rd tree area / major arterial $0.11 5 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11 6 x x (partially) Neighborhood entrance $0.11 L. Kent Hill 1 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11 2 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11 M. Country Creek 1 x Narrow path with trees on Twin Peaks Rd.$0.11 2 x x Drainage Ditch behind home fences; Option: Return to City 6889 $0.11 3 x Drainage Ditch behind home fences; Option: Return to City 943 $0.11 4 x x Hiking path behind home across from horse stables $0.11 5 x Narrow path with trees along Tierra Bonita Rd.$0.11 N. Rio Court 1 x Narrow path with trees along Twin Peaks Rd. $0.11 2 x Corner of Twin Peaks Rd. and Espola behind house fences $0.11 3 x Narrow path with trees along Espola $0.11 O. Poway 16 1 x Entrance / Small area along Community Rd. across from Hilleary Park $0.11 2 x Entrance / Small area along Community Rd. across from Hilleary Park $0.11 3 x On side street behind LMD properties; Properties benefiting not in LMD 1479 $0.11 P. Midland Estates 1 x Entrance / Small strip along Midland Rd. $0.11 Q. Diroma 1 x Entrance and small strip along Midland Rd.$0.11 2 x Entrance and small strip along Midland Rd.$0.11 R. Park Village 1 x Neighborhood area $0.11 2 x Neighborhood area $0.11 S. Arbolitos Parkside 1 x Neighborhood area $0.11 2 x Neighborhood area $0.11 3 x Neighborhood area $0.11 4 x Neighborhood area $0.11 Total 83-1A Only 353092 Total 83-1B Only 32063 Total Square Feet 385155 Frequency/Year Performed LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D Return to City Irrigation Inspection/Operation & Maintenance 52 52 26 0**** 52 24 12 2 *** 24 12 6 2 *** 12 6 3 2 *** 4 2 1 0 *** 4 2 1 ***** 4 2 1 2 *** 24 12 6 0 *** 2 1 0 ***** 3 1 1 0 *** * Do not irrigate these areas. **Only as needed ***LMD would no longer be responsible for maintenance of these areas. They would be either removed from the LMD or the City would contribute funding to the LMD based on a "per square foot" cost. ****Tree pruning would be on a separate schedule LOS A, B and C descriptions are from the August 21, 2018 Council Agenda Report. LOS D is proposed by the Advisory Committee Tree Pruning**** Watering/Week LOS Maintenance Descriptions Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 83-1 Edging/Pruning Fertilizing Pest Control Brow Ditch Cleaning Sweep Paved Areas SQ FT ESTIMATE Avg. Cost / SQ FT Litter Control Weed Control CommentsMap Page Area No. LMD Responsibility Return to City On Private Property 28 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 LMD Advisory Committee Proposed Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 86-1 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D 1 St. James Dr. and St. Andrews Dr. Espola Rd.1 X* X*X ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY; *MTCE LEVEL D; IRRIGATION LEVEL C 2 X 2 Espola Rd (Westling Ct-Stoneridge SE Corner)1 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 2 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY 3 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY 3 Espola Rd (Green Valley Truck Trl to Bridelwood Rd) 1 X X APPEARS TO BE PARTIALLY WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY 2 X 3 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 4 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 4 Espola Rd ( Woodlawn Pkwy-Green Valley Truck Trl 1 X 2 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS - DISCUSSION 3 X 4 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 5 X 6 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 7 X 5 MISSING THIS MAP PAGE IF ESPOLA RD., RECOMMEND LEVEL "B", CORNER CARVEOUTS AT LEVEL "A" 6 Espola Rd (Lake Poway Rd to Sand Hill Rd/Summer Sage Rd 1 X 2 X 3 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 4 X 5 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 6 X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 7 Espola Rd (Eden Grove/Titan Way-Sand Hill Rd 1 X X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 2 X WITH 2 ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUTS TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 3 X X (PARTIAL) WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 8 Espola Rd (Willow Ranch Rd-Eden Grove/Titan Way) 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X X 5 X X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 6 X X MAP PAGE 8 HAS SOME OVERLAP WITH MAP PAGE 12 7 X ? MAP PAGE 8 HAS SOME OVERLAP WITH MAP PAGE 12 9 13800-14050 Lake Poway Rd 1 X 2 X 3 X 10 Summer Sage Rd Rock Creek Rd 1 X 5185 $0.11 2 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO CUL DE SAC RESIDENTS FOR DISCUSSION 3 X RECOMMEND OUTREACH TO CUL DE SAC RESIDENTS FOR DISCUSSION Avg. Cost / SQ FTMap Page continued on page 2 Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 86-1 Comments LMD ResponsibilityArea No. Return to City On Private Property SQ FT ESTIMATE 29 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 page 2 LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D 11 Lake Poway Rd Summer Sage Rd 1 X PORTION WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 2 X WITH ENTRANCE CORNER CARVEOUT TO BE MAINTAINED AT LEVEL "A" 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 12 Titan Way Riparian Rd 1 X X See #6 on Map Page 8 2 X ? See #7 on Map Page 8 3 X SEE--> OWNED BY POWAY USD 13 Del Poniente Rd Huntington Gate Dr (1)1 X PORTION 2 X 3 X 4 X PORTION 5 X 14 Del Poniente Rd Huntington Gate Dr (2)1 X 15 Sunset Dr Wildgrove Rd 1 X ? EXTENT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, IF ANY, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED 16 Lake Poway Rd East of Espola Rd 1 PORTION APPEARS TO BE PRIVATE PROPERTY COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6 2 COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6 3 COORDINATE W. MAP PAGE 6 Total Square Feet 5185 LOS Maintenance Descriptions Frequency/Year Performed LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D Irrigation Inspection/Operation & Maintenance 52 52 26 0* Litter Control 52 24 12 2 Weed Control 24 12 6 2 Edging/Pruning 12 6 3 2 Fertilizing 4 2 1 0 Pest Control 4 2 1 ** Brow Ditch Cleaning 4 2 1 2 Sweep Paved Areas 24 12 6 0 Tree Pruning****2 1 0 ** Watering/Week 3 1 1 0 CommentsPage Name Area No. LMD Responsibility Return to City On Private Property SQ FT ESTIMATE *** *** *** ***LMD would no longer be responsible for maintenance of these areas. They would be either removed from the LMD or the City would contribute funding to the LMD based on a "per square foot" cost. ****Tree pruning would be on a separate schedule. LOS A, B and C descriptions are from the August 21, 2018 Council Agenda Report. LOS D is proposed by the Advisory Committee. Proposed Landscape Maintenance Priorities by Maintained Area LMD 86-1 *** *** * Do not irrigate these areas. **Only as needed. *** *** *** *** *** Avg. Cost / SQ FT Return to City 30 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment F LMD 83-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations North 31 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 LMD 86-1 Neighborhood Entrance Locations 32 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment G Advisory Committee Strategy Recommended City Funding Table (LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1) Current Year Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Tree Removal (1)50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 25,000 Supplemental Water (2)113,873 119,567 125,545 Landscape Master Plan (3)100,000 25,000 Model Entrance Area Installation 25,000 LMD Committee Communications Funding 5,000 Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 17,500 Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)45,800 47,174 48,589 50,047 51,548 53,095 54,688 56,328 Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)75,000 75,000 25,000 Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)50,000 50,000 50,000 Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(62,500) (62,500) (37,500) Total Recommended City Funding $163,873 $319,567 $273,045 $233,300 $209,674 $111,089 $50,047 $51,548 $53,095 $54,688 $56,328 City General Benefit Contribution (7)$64,959 $66,908 $68,915 $63,658 $65,568 $67,535 $69,561 $71,648 $73,797 $76,011 $78,291 Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$228,832 $386,474 $341,960 $296,958 $275,242 $178,624 $119,608 $123,196 $126,892 $130,699 $134,620 LMD 83-1 Assessment Revenues (8)$201,640 $201,640 $201,640 $411,200 $423,536 $436,242 $449,329 $462,809 $476,693 $490,994 $505,724 Tree Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 Supplemental Water (2)51,657 54,240 56,952 Landscape Master Plan (3)100,000 25,000 Model Entrance Area Installation 25,000 LMD Committee Communications Funding 5,000 Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 17,500 Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)600 618 637 656 675 696 716 738 Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)100,000 100,000 50,000 Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)50,000 50,000 50,000 Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(75,000) (75,000) (50,000) Total Recommended City Funding $101,657 $204,240 $154,452 $150,600 $200,618 $100,637 $656 $675 $696 $716 $738 City General Benefit Contribution (7)$46,767 $48,170 $49,615 $76,123 $78,407 $80,759 $83,182 $85,677 $88,247 $90,895 $93,622 Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$148,424 $252,410 $204,067 $226,723 $279,025 $181,395 $83,837 $86,352 $88,943 $91,611 $94,360 LMD 86-1 Assessment Revenues (8)$231,860 $231,860 $231,860 $512,000 $527,360 $543,181 $559,476 $576,261 $593,548 $611,355 $629,695 Tree Removal (1)100,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 50,000 Supplemental Water (2)165,530 173,807 182,497 Landscape Master Plan (3)200,000 50,000 Model Entrance Area Installation 50,000 LMD Committee Communications Funding 10,000 Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report 35,000 Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities (4)46,400 47,792 49,226 50,703 52,224 53,790 55,404 57,066 Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) (5)175,000 175,000 75,000 Capital Rehabilitaiton for Non-Entrance Irrigation (5)100,000 100,000 100,000 Loan for Capital Rehabilitation (6)(137,500) (137,500) (87,500) Total Recommended City Funding $265,530 $523,807 $427,497 $383,900 $235,292 $136,726 $50,703 $52,224 $53,790 $55,404 $57,066 City General Benefit Contribution (7)$111,726 $115,078 $118,530 $139,781 $143,974 $148,294 $152,742 $157,325 $162,044 $166,906 $171,913 Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$377,256 $638,884 $546,027 $523,681 $379,266 $285,019 $203,445 $209,548 $215,835 $222,310 $228,979 Total LMD Assessment Revenues (8)$433,500 $433,500 $433,500 $923,200 $950,896 $979,423 $1,008,806 $1,039,070 $1,070,242 $1,102,349 $1,135,420 February 25, 2019 -COMBINED NOTES for LMD Advisory Committee Draft Funding Request for LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1: (4) Post a successful ballot vote, assumes City would cover maintenance costs for areas identified by the Advisory Committee as having weak nexus to LMD special benefit. Average maintenance costs in the LMDs differ for roadway median areas ($0.28/sq.ft) and other rights-of-way ($0.11/sq.ft.). In 83-1, the identified areas total approximately 353,100 square feet (312,000 at $0.11/sq.ft. maintenance cost and 41,000 sq.ft.@ $0.28/sq.ft. maintenance cost). For 86-1, there is one area of approximately 5,200 sq.ft. at $0.11/sq. ft. As LMD assessments escalate in out years, assumes costs for City maintenance area responsibilities would escalate at same rate. Escalation rate assumed to be 3%. (These estimates do not include LMD 83-1B). (5) For entrance rehabilitation, assumes approximately 19 entrances with 34 corners at $12,500 rehabilitation cost/corner over three years for a total of $425,000. For irrigation rehabilitation, assumes $150,000/LMD. (6) Assumes City would loan the LMDs half the costs for capital rehabilitation. (8) Assumes LMD revenues equivalent to those projected in the failed 2018 ballot, escalated 3% annually. (1) In the Current Year, City is contributing $50,000 for each LMD for emergency tree removal. Future year proposals would increase that amount to $150,000 ($100,000 to 83-1 and $50,000 to 86-1) until tree maintenance is stabilized (projected to be Year 5). Some or all of these costs could be applied to the City's required local match should it be successful in the Hazard Mitigation grant application. (7) In the Current Year, City's General Benefit contribution is $111,726 ($64,949 for LMD 83-1 + $46,767 for LMD 86-1). The City has been escalating its contribution annually by the CPI. Therefore, future years' assumes a 3% annual escalation of the City's General Benefit contribution. The 2018 Engineer's Report recommended a City General Benefit Contribution of 10%, which was assumed to be $140,000 ($63,658 for LMD 83-1 + $76,123 for LMD 86-1) had the ballot passed and new assessments been in effect. Therefore, beginning in Year 3 (post successful ballot), the City's General Benefit contribution is assumed to be in accordance with the 2018 Engineeer's Report. (2) Funding provided by City in the Current Year to cover water costs = $165,530 ($113,873 for LMD 86-1 + $51,657 for LMD 86-1). Assumes escalation rate of 5%/year for water in Years 1 and 2 prior to re-balloting. Assumes successful re-ballot would increase LMD assessments, eliminating the need for City supplemental water funding. (3) Assumes a combined Landscape Master Plan would be prepred for both LMDs. Therefore, the total cost is split equally between LMDs. LMD 83-1 = Full or partial loan to LMD from City LMD Ballot Vote Year 2 FY20/21 LMD Ballot Vote LMD 86-1 LMD Ballot Vote LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 33 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Attachment H Do-Nothing Scenario Projected Funding Required (LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1) Current Year Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 FY25/26 FY26/27 FY27/28 FY28/29 Emergency Tree Maintenance and Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 50000 50000 City General Benefit Contribution (2)64,959 66,908 68,915 70,982 73,112 75,305 77,564 79,891 82,288 84,757 87,299 Supplemental Water (3)113,873 119,567 125,545 131,822 138,413 145,334 152,601 160,231 168,242 176,654 185,487 Landscape Master Plan Model Entrance Area Installation LMD Committee Communications Funding Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation Loan for Capital Rehabilitation Total City Funding for LMD 83-1 $228,832 $236,474 $244,460 $252,805 $261,525 $270,639 $280,165 $290,122 $300,530 $311,411 $322,787 Tree Removal (1)50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 50000 50000 City General Benefit Contribution (2)46,767 48,170 49,615 51,104 52,637 54,216 55,842 57,518 59,243 61,020 62,851 Supplemental Water (3)51,657 54,240 56,952 59,799 62,789 65,929 69,225 72,687 76,321 80,137 84,144 Landscape Master Plan Model Entrance Area Installation LMD Committee Communications Funding Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) Capital Rehabilitation for Non-Entrance Irrigation Loan for Capital Rehabilitation Total City Funding for LMD 86-1 $148,424 $152,410 $156,567 $160,903 $165,426 $170,145 $175,068 $180,204 $185,564 $191,157 $196,995 Tree Removal (1)100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 City General Benefit Contribution (2)111,726 115,078 118,530 122,086 125,749 129,521 133,407 137,409 141,531 145,777 150,150 Supplemental Water (3)165,530 173,807 182,497 191,622 201,203 211,263 221,826 232,917 244,563 256,791 269,631 Landscape Master Plan Model Entrance Area Installation LMD Committee Communications Funding Re-Balloting & New Engineer's Report Realigned Maintenance Area Responsibilities Capital Rehabilitation for Entrances (incl. Irrigation) Capital Rehabilitaiton for Non-Entrance Irrigation Loan for Capital Rehabilitation Total Projected Do-Nothing City Funding Required for LMDs $377,256 $388,884 $401,027 $413,708 $426,951 $440,784 $455,233 $470,326 $486,094 $502,568 $519,781 Total Recommended City Funding (From Advisory Committee)$265,530 $523,807 $427,497 $383,900 $235,292 $136,726 $50,703 $52,224 $53,790 $55,404 $57,066 City General Benefit Contribution (2)$111,726 $115,078 $118,530 $122,086 $125,749 $129,521 $133,407 $137,409 $141,531 $145,777 $150,150 Total City Funding (Recommended + General Benefit)$377,256 $638,884 $546,027 $505,986 $361,041 $266,247 $184,109 $189,632 $195,321 $201,181 $207,217 Net City Funding Total (Advisory Committee Recommendation + General Benefit) (Difference between Total City Funding and Do-Nothing)$250,000 $145,000 $92,278 ($65,911) ($174,537) ($271,123)($280,694) ($290,773) ($301,387) ($312,565) February 25, 2019 -Do-Nothing Scenario COMBINED NOTES for LMD Advisory Committee Do-Nothing Scenario: Draft Proposed Funding Request for LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1: (2) In the Current Year, City's General Benefit contribution is $111,726 ($64,949 for LMD 83-1 + $46,767 for LMD 86-1). The City has been escalating its contribution annually by the CPI. Therefore, future years assume a 3% annual escalation of the City's General Benefit contribution under a Do Nothing scenario to $122,086 in Year 3 forward vs. a Year 3 increase to 10% of new assessments (or $140,000) as in the Recommended scenario. (3) Funding provided by City in the Current Year to cover water costs = $165,530 ($113,873 for LMD 86-1 + $51,657 for LMD 86-1). Assumes escalation rate of 5%/year for water. Water costs would fail to become more manageable in the future years in the absence of installation of drought tolerant landscaping and more efficient irrigations systems. LMD 83-1 LMD 86-1 No LMD Ballot Vote LMD 83-1 and LMD 86-1 Year 2 FY20/21 No LMD Ballot Vote (1) In the Current Year, City is contributing $50,000 for each LMD for tree removal. Assumes future years would require at least the same investment to address tree emergencies. Does not lead to stabilization of trees and tree maintenance. No LMD Ballot Vote 34 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 CITY OF POWAY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Dave Grosch, Deputy Mayor Caylin Frank, Councilmember DATE: June 4, 2019 SUBJECT: Workshop Request for Landscape Maintenance District 83-1 and 86-1 The assessment revenue collected in Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs} 83-1 and 86-1 are no longer sufficient to fund their improvements and services. Reserve funds have been gradually depleted as expenses have grown and revenues have not. Consequently, the level of landscape maintenance service has gradually been reduced, based on the available funding, causing a deterioration of landscape conditions. Following a failed Prop 218 ballot process last year to increase assessment rates for these two districts, the City Council authorized staff to establish a Volunteer Advisory Group and appropriated one-time funding to the LMDs for water costs and emergency tree removal. The Advisory Group presented the City Council with its recommendations at a workshop on March 19, 2019. While the workshop discussion acknowledged the dire conditions of the LMDs, including the health and safety risks caused by dead and diseased trees along main arterials, the meeting did not provide enough direction to staff for further action to be taken. There are still many questions and options to consider in addressing the future of LMDs 83-1 and 86-1, lncluding: •Creating a landscape master plan•Costs and funding options for recommendations•Strategy and costs for a re-balloting and/or reengineering•Capital improvements needed in each LMD Per Council direction on May 7, 2019, another LMD Workshop will be held on July 16, 2019, to elaborate on these options and come to a consensus on a clear plan of action for staff to execute. 35 of 51 ATTACHMENT B August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 ktua July 2, 2019 City of Poway Public Works Department Poway, CA Attention: Regarding: Project: Dear Eric, Mr. Eric Heideman Project Manager Proposal for Landscape Architecture Services Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 3916 Normal Street San Diego, CA 92103 619.294.4477 www.ktua.com PLA 2342 I 2386 I 2500 I 3734 We appreciate the opportunity to be considered your design team and to submit to you our landscape architectural professional services and fees. This proposal is to correspond to the scope of work per our initial meetings with you and the LMD Advisory Group along with the recent set of circumstances related to the unsuccessful 2018 ballot measures for funding the City of Poway's LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts. As we understand the City has formed the LMD Advisory Group to assist the City in researching the reasons for the unsuccessful ballot measures and providing some recommendations or ideas on possible solutions for a successful attempt at another ballot measure. It is the shared opinion of this advisory group that a well-designed landscape master plan (LMP) that effectively communicates how landscape improvements and upgrades will add value to these LMD districts and thus provide a more trusted plan for future LMD funding. The initial scope of work, as we understand it is as follows: I.SCOPE OF SERVICES: PHASE 1-SITE ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH TASK 1.1 Kick-off Meeting The initial project meetings will include a discussion between the partnership of KTUA (hereby known as the consultant) the City of Poway (hereby known as the client), LMD Advisory Group and community stakeholders. The goal of these meetings will be to discuss a clear and concise direction for this project, refine and review project schedule, past issues and ideas for improvement and discuss each party's role throughout the project. This 'partnership' of participants should be prepared to provide the consultant with any additional preliminary programming requirements for the proposed two project site areas. TASK 1.2 LMD Meeting w City Council KTUA will attend a meeting facilitated by City staff and LMD Advisory Group presenting their studies and recommendations for improvements to LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts. KTUA will convene with City Staff and 36 of 51 ATTACHMENT C August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page2 LMD to discuss any further program requirements necessary to develop an LMP. TASK 1.3 Identify Project Issues The consultant will identify issues related to existing conditions, design, construction and maintenance of the proposed two project site areas. TASK 1.4 Review Previous Studies and Projects All existing plans, policies, reports, and other available data will be reviewed to familiarize the consultant and team with the previous planning and recommendation efforts. The consultant will obtain any available maps from the client, utility companies and other agencies to identify what information is missing or needs updating. TASK 1.5 Base Map Preparation Includes setting up a base map for each site (LMD 83-1 and 86-1 districts) with digital files (electronic topographical base survey) prepared by City of Poway. Information gathered from existing as-builts and plans regarding existing boundary, utilities and right-of-way's will be added to the base map. Also requires performing a limited field ground survey for design purposes to confirm/determine general locations of items such as existing driveways, curbs, walks, etc. where proposed improvements will join. If base is insufficient, an optional service for providing topographical survey for base map development can be provided. TASK 1.6 Site Visit & Analysis The KTUA team (including client, other subs and the project stakeholders deemed necessary) will visit each of the two project site areas to ascertain relevant site issues as well as gather information on the visible features of both sites. Visiting the sites with the entire partnership will enable us to observe the specific elements of the site that may be of concern to each member of the partnership. TASK 1.7 Opportunity and Constraint plans KTUA will inventory each of the project site areas to gather information on the visible features of the site. A site analysis/ Opportunity and Constraint plan will be prepared for each project area and be assembled into a graphic plan denoting the various site conditions of the project site. All Color boards will be suitable for presentation at the public meetings; and legible when reduced. TASK 1.8 Meeting with City and LMD KTUA will conduct meetings (1 max.) with the client to coordinate project progress or for dir ection during review of the Opportunity and Constraint plans. Also, discuss the objectives of the first community workshop. Possible dates for other meetings, workshops and deadlines will also be established with client, City staff and necessary stakeholders. TASK 1.9 Deliverables/ Project Management KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and administration. •PHASE 1 Estimated time requirement: approximately 6-8 weeks •Deliverables: Base Map Development, Site Analysis, Opportunity and Constraint plans 37 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 3 PHASE 2 -LANDSCAPE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT TASK 2.1 Prepare Conceptual Development Plan Alternatives With direction provided by the partnership, KTUA will prepare conce ptual design alternatives (2 max} for each of the two (2) project site areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1). Alternatives will be prepared and shall be based upon client's direction, stakehold er input, existing conditions, site analysis, anticipated costs and any previous studies. Presentation boards will be prepared in color. The plans will illustrate the composition of the site elements including all proposed and existing structures, access and projecting, hardscape and plant massing. All color boards will be suitable for presentation at the public meetings; and legible when reduced to 11"x17". TASK 2.2 Community Character Imagery KTUA will prepare character images for conceptual design alternatives for each of the two (2) project site areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1}. for review and comment . Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 2.3 Meet w/ City Staff (1) KTUA will present the alternatives to the City staff (client} for review and comment prior to meeting with the LMD Advisory Group. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 2.4 Meeting w/ City Staff and LMD (1) Alternatives will then be presented to the representatives of the partnership for review and comment prior to Community Workshop. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 2.5 Deliverables/Project Management KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and administration. •PHASE 2 Estimated time requirement: approximately 5-6 weeks •Deliverables: Landscape concepts for both project sites, community character imagery PHASE 3 -COMMUNITY WORKSHOP TASK 3.1 Client Meetings KTUA will conduct meeting (1 max.} with the client to coordinate project progress and direction and discuss the objectives of the community workshop for each LMD (83-1 and 86-1). Possib le dates for other meetings, workshops and deadlines will also be discussed with City staff and necessary stakeholders. TASK 3.2 Prepare Cost Estimates for Concepts KTUA will provide general cost of construction items for discussion purposes related to the alternative designs for both project site areas for review. TASK 3.3 Community Survey/Questionnaire KTUA will prepare survey/ questionnaire for gathering community input at workshop but are not responsible for reproduction and mailing them out to public. KTUA can assist City's Public Information officer with public outreach ideas via social media such as Survey Monkey, Face book or City website. 38 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 712/2019 Page4 TASK 3.4 Community Workshops KTUA will prepare for each of the two Community workshops. The workshop will be conducted by KTUA and the LMD Advisory Group with the community at large. The KTUA will review the issues of the project site areas and share information obtained by others (City staff and LMD Advisory Group), Site Analysis & Constraints Maps. KTUA will then guide the attendees through a presentation of the design concept alternatives for both proposed project site areas. KTUA will listen to the pros and cons of both designs. TASK 3.5 Summarize Workshop Input KTUA will prepare a summary report of the information gathered from the workshop. The report will prioritize the information to provide a clear picture of the data and comments obtained in response to the presentation of the design concept alternatives for both proposed project site areas. TASK 3.6 Meetings with City and LMD (2) The representatives of the partnership (client first) will be given summary meeting notes of the workshop findings. A meeting to discuss those findings will be conducted by KTUA (1 total). Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 3. 7 Deliverables/Project Management KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and administration. •PHASE 3 -Estimated time requirement: approximately 4-5 weeks •Deliverables -Community survey/questionnaire, general cost information for discussion, community workshop and input on designs of alternatives. PHASE 4-FINAL MASTER LANDSCAPE PLANS TASK 4.1 Prepare Final Master Landscape Plans The designs of each alternative will be finalized on the final master landscape plans with the preferred designs being provided based on the workshop findings and discussions with the City staff, the LMD Advisory Group and community sta keholders. KTUA will refine and provide a final master landscape site plan and character imagery for both Project site areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1), in conformance with the City of Poway's landscape regulations and guidelines. The final plans will be illustrative master plans of the proposed improvements, at appropriate scale, specifically showing the overall site and general features of the project site areas, streetscapes, entries, paved areas, roadway, tree and shrub plantings (existing and proposed) and designated landscape areas. Enlargements of some areas may be required as an example of types of improvements desired. Other amenities may include walkways, trails and benches. All work will be coordinated and prepared using the latest AutoCAD base as provided by the client (see client responsibilities). TASK 4.2 Plant Palettes A plant palette will be developed based on the workshop results and stakehol der discussions. All plants will be identified as to Botanical and Common names will propose sizes, approximate quantities and locations for cost in formation. 39 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 5 TASK 4.3 Prepare Cost Analysis of Final Master Landscape Plans KTUA will provide a more detailed probable cost of construction of the approved alternative designs for each project site area for review. TASK 4.4 Phasing Plans KTUA will provide phasing plan based on the workshop results and stakeholder discussions of each of the approved alternative designs for each project site area. TASK 4.5 Meetings with City and LMD (2) The representatives of the partnership (client first) will be given summary meeting notes of the workshop findings. A meeting to discuss those findings will be conducted by KTUA (1 total). The alternatives will then be presented to the representatives of the partnership for their review and comment. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 4.6 Deliverables/Project Management KTUA will maintain close coordination with Client, consultant team and the City to resolve questions and key issues so that the project can proceed as scheduled. Also includes in-house team management and administration. •PHASE 4 -Estimated time requirement: approximately 5-6 weeks •Deliverable -Final landscape master plans, plant palettes, amenities for all available data, plans and graphics produced for the project. PHASE 5 -Additional/ Optional Tasks (if required) TASK 5.1 Community Workshop **** Additional community workshops can be conducted by KTUA as required for each of the project sites as necessary. KTUA can present or provide additional design alternatives, ideas, cost estimates information or whatever is requested, then guide the attendees through a discussion as required. TASK 5.2 Irrigation Site Review and Report. KTUA will conduct a site walk through the two site project areas (LMD 83-1 and 86-1) with a site maintenance representative from the City of Poway. The current problems and issues will be discussed along with any observed by the KTUA team. The KTUA team will provide site water savings recommendations for specific irrigation improvements of the common landscape areas. TASK 5.3 3D Model KTUA will provide a 3D model for each of the project site area (LMD 83-1 and 86-1) displaying the alternative designs for City staff (client) review and comment prior to meeting with the LMD Advisory Group and stakehol ders. Revisions and adjustments will be made as requested. TASK 5.4 Funding Resources KTUA can research and provide ideas and sources for additional funding measures for the City regarding the project site design areas. 40 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page6 •PHASE 5 -Estimated time requirement: unknown •Deliverable -Additional workshop findings and decisions, irrigation analysis and reports, 3D models of designs and Funding Resources recomme ndations. II.PROFESSIONAL FEES: Our proposed fees shall be per the attached fee matrix 'Exhibit A' dated 7/02/19 i)All hourly rates for services required and/or performed for this project after July of each year are subject to a maximum increase of five percent (5%) per annum for cost of doing business increase. ii)Fee payment request for time and material work, additional services, and other reimbursable costs will be due and payable at the first of each month for items furnished and work completed. iii)It is hereby agreed that failure by the Client to pay promptly all amounts due he reunder this Agreement to the Landscape Architect, as and when the same becomes due, will excuse further performance by the Landscape Architect until all such payments have been made; and under such circumstances the Landscape Architect may, at his option, add interest to accounts thirty (30) days past due at the rate of one percent (1%) per month on the unpaid balance of the account due and assessed until such overdue balance has been paid in full. The Client shall pay for all legal costs and Attorney's fees resulting from any legal action required collecting those fees, which remain unpaid for a period in excess on ninety (90) days; the firm may also terminate the performance of the service at this time. iv)Additional requirements and services listed in other agreements with the Client are specifically excluded from this proposal unless specifically agreed to in writing. Ill. REIMBURSABLES: All reimbursables or additional work costs will be billed on an as-used or hourly basis up to $750. All items over maximum will be considered additional services and require written client approval prior to commencing additional work. A.It is understood that majority of our files shall be emailed or digitally transferred to architect. Review/print sets, Mylars, and Bid sets with deliveries are not included in this fee. Architect can provide print vendor if required. B.Blueprint or plotting costs (no bid sets or mylars) -at cost plus 10%. C.Special Delivery Costs -at cost plus 10%. D.All meetings are listed, additional meetings shall be on an hourly basis or negotiated lump sum fee; all out of town travel and/or lodging expenses (out of San Diego County), are at cost. Via air-travel or car rental at current rates, or private automobile at $.58 cents/mile. E.Major site plan revisions to drawings or modifications to the plans after approvals - Hourly plus expenses. F.All outside/consultant services, BIM software & Modeling, at cost plus 10% G.All plan-processing fees are to be paid by client before plan submittal. 41 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/1/1019 Page 7 IV.ADDITIONAL SERVICES: Additional Services -The Client will provide change orders, change order drawings, and related services upon specific written request. However, all services beyond those specified in this Agreement will be provided under an hourly arrangement. The following shall be considered as additional services: A.All changes and revisions to the program or site plan as requested by the Client, reviewing public agencies, or other authorized parties, after the plans have been approved at each phase. B.Additional meetings with architect, client and/or county agency due to unforeseen requirements. C.Preparing studies, reports and/or additional drawings required because of all revisions in the criteria or project program; revising drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are inconsistent with approvals or instructions previously given; or performing services required to prepare alternate schemes for Client consideration beyond those prepared under the normal pursuit of a project of this nature. D.Preparing additional presentations, studies, reports or drawings and/or making modifications to the existing documents due to changes of laws or codes by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the project. E.Providing special analysis of Client needs not covered by this contract. F.Providing professional consultation concerning replacement of any work damaged by fire or other cause during construction and furnished professional services of the type set forth in Scope of Services as may be required about the replacement of such work. G.Providing professional services made necessary by the default of the contract or major defects in the work of the contractor in performance of the construction contract. H.Providing assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system, or consultation during operation. I.Providing clerical services beyond those required by the scope of services. J.Preparing demolition plans, separate public improvement drawings, grading/drainage plans, storm water management, park plans, ADA conformance, leak analysis and any other plans not specifically stated in Scope of Services. K.All plan-processing fees are to be paid by clie nt before plan submittal. KTUA Additional Service Hourly Rates: Cle rica I/ Administrative Designer/Planner Senior Designer Associate Senior Associate Principal V.CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES: $85.00/hour $105.00/hour $115.00/hour $125.00/hour $145.00/hour $175.00/hour The Client shall be responsible and agree to provide or cause to be provided to the Landscape Architect, at no cost to the Landscape Architect, (if available) the following: 42 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 8 A.Any existing electronic base plans available in Auto Cad format version 2018 min., DXF, DWG or EXE. CAD files shall be accompanied by file per settings, names of files, reference files, named views, (indicate if in paper space or model space). Descripti on of CAD file layers (name & indicate on, off, frozen, etc.); showing exact locations, elevati ons, and sizes of proposed structures and improvements. Certified land survey of the site, giving grades and lines of streets, pavements and adjoining properties, rights-of-ways, restrictions, easements, zoning, deed restrictions and contours of the site; locations, dimensions and complete data pertaining to existing improvements, plantings, and available services and utilities both public and private. Prints denoting accurate to scale plans and drawings (and on disk). B.Any existing site grading plans of proposed topography of project site; locations and elevations proposed utility lines and facilities, including source(s) of water and static water pressure(s), and locations for 110v electrical connections available for irrigation system(s). C.Providing promptly full information regarding the requirements for the project. VI.TERMS AND CONDITIONS A.Access to Site -Unless otherwise stated, the firm will have access to the site for activities necessary for the performance of services. The firm will take the precautions to minimize damage due to these activities but has not included in the fee the cost of restoration of any resulting damage. B.Applicable Law -The agreement will be governed by the laws of the principal place of the firms' place of business. c.Betterment -If, due to the Consultant's negligence, a required item or component of the Project is omitted from the Consultant's documents, the Consultant shall not be responsible for paying the cost required to add such item or component to the extent that such item or component would have been required and included in the original construction documents. In no event, will the Consultant be responsible for any cost or exp ense that provides betterm ent or upgrades or enhances the value of the Project. D.Consequential Damages -Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and fully permitted by law, neither the Client nor the Consultant, their respective officers, directors, pa rtners, employees, contractors or sub consultants shall be liable to the other or shall make any claim for any incidental, indirect or consequential damages arising out of or co nnected in any way to the Project or to this Agreement. This mutual waiver of consequential damages shall include, but is not limited to, loss of use, loss of profit, loss of business, loss of income, loss of reputation and any other consequential damages that either party may have incurred from any cause of action including negligence, strict liability, breach of contract and breach of strict or implied warranty. Both the Client and the Consultant shall require similar waivers of consequential damages protecting all the entities or persons named herein in all contracts and subcontracts with others involved in this project. E.Certificate of Merit -In case of a civil suit, the Client agrees that prior to filing suit against the Landscape Architect; the Client will engage another Landscape Architect to verify and certify (after reviewing this Agreement) the contract documents, project files and site conditions, that there is justifiable cause for the suit. F.Certifications - Guarantees and Warrantees: The firm shall not be required to execute any document that would result in its certifying, guaranteeing or warranting the existence of conditions whose existence the firm cannot ascertain. 43 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page9 G.Code Compliance -The firm shall put forth reasonable professional efforts to comply with applicable laws, codes, and regulations in effect at the time of the execution of this agreement. Design changes made necessary by newly enacted laws, codes and regulations put into effect after the date of this agreement shall entitle the firm to a reasonable adjustment in the schedule and additional compensation in accordance with the additional services agreement provision of this agreement. H.Corporate Protection -It is intended by the parties to this Agreement that the Consultant's services about the Project shall not subject the Consultant's individual employees, officers or directors to any personal legal exposure for the risks associated with this Project. Therefore, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the Client agrees that as the Client's sole and exclusive remedy, any claim, demand or suit shall be directed and/or asserted only against the Consultant, a California State corporation, and not against any of the Consultant's individual employees, officers or directors. I.Delays -The client agrees that the firm is not responsible for damages arising or indirectly from the delays for causes beyond the firm's control. For purposes of this agreement, such causes include, but are not limited to weather disruptions or other natural disasters, fires, or other acts of god, failure of any governmental agency to act in a timely manner, or discovery of any hazardous substances or differing site conditions. J.Dispute Resolution -Any claims or disputes made during design, construction or post­ construction between the client and firm shall be submitted to non-binding mediation. Client and firm agree that mediation will serve as the prim ary method for dispute resolution and each party agrees to bear their own costs for mediation. K.Indemnification -The Consultant agrees, fully permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Client, its officers, directors and employees (collectively, Client) against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, to the extent caused by the Consultant's negligent performance of professional services under this Agreement and that of its subconsul tants or anyone for whom the Consultant is legally liable. The Client agrees, fully permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant, its officers, directors, employees and subconsultants (collectively, Consultant) against all damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, to the extent caused by the Client's negligent acts about the Project and the acts of its contractors, subcontractors or consultants or anyone for whom the Client is legally liable. Neither the Client nor the Consultant shall be obligated to indemnify the other party in any manner whatsoever for the other party's own negligence. L. Information Provided by Others -The client shall furnish all information, requirements, reports, data, survey and instructions required by this agreement. The firm may use such information, requirements, reports, data surveys and instructions in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. M.Jobsite Safety -Neither the professional activities of the Consultant, nor the presence of the Consultant or its employees and sub consultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and coordinating the Work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. The Consultant and its personnel have no authority to exercise any contr ol over any construction contractor or its employees about their work or any health or safety programs or procedures. 44 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espo1a Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 10 The Client agrees that the General Contractor shall be solely responsible for jobsite safety and warrants that this intent shall be carried out in the Client's contract with the General Contractor. The Client also agrees that the Client, the Consultant and the Consultant's sub consultants shall be indemnified by the General Contractor and shall be made additional insured under the General Contractor's policies of general liability insurance. N.Limitation of Liability-Such claims and causes include, but are not limited to negligence, professional errors or omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or warranty. In recognition of the relative risks and benefits of the Project to both the client and the Consultant, the risks have been allocated such as the client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit the liability of the Consultant (including the Consultant's Sub consultants) to the Client for any and all claims, losses, costs , damages of any nature whatsoever or claims expenses from any cause or causes, including attorneys' fees and costs and expert-witness fees and costs, so that the total aggregate liability of the Consultant to the Client shall not exceed $50,000.00, or the Consultant's total fee for services rendered on this Project, whichever is greater. Insurance coverage is limited to that coverage available at time of settlement or judgment. It is intended that this limitation apply to all liability or cause of action however alleged or arising, unless otherwise prohibited by law. 0.Maintenance -Owner and Consultant agree that inspection, maintenance, and normal repair are the exclusive obligation of the owner for the (structure/ project). Consultant shall have no responsibility for the inspection, maintenance, and normal repair of any portion of the Project, and shall have no financial or other responsibility for damages arising out of the failure to inspect, maintain, or repair the Project. P.Other Agreements -Additional requirements and services listed in other agreements with the client are specifically excluded from this proposal unless specifically agreed to in writing. Q.Ownership of Documents -All documents produced by the firm under this agreement shall remain the property of the firm and may not be used by the client for any other endeavor without the written consent of the firm. Any use or reuse of altered files by the Client or others, without written verification or CADD adaptations by the consultant for the specific purpose intended, will be at the Client's risk and full legal responsibility. R.Standard of Care -In providing services under this Agreement, the Consultant will endeavor to perform in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances. s. Survivability -The provisions of this agreement shall survive the completion of services and the scope of services. T.Termination of Services -This agreement may be terminated by the client or the firm for convenience and without cause upon giving the other party not less than ten (10) calendar days' written notice. In the event of termination, the client shall pay the firm for all services rendered to the date of termination, all reimbursable expenses, and reimbursable termination expenses. u.Value Engineering -If the Client retains the services of a Value Engineer (VE) to review the plans prepared by the Consultant, these services shall be at the Client's sole expense and shall be performed in a timely manner so as not to delay the orderly progress of the Consultant's services. The Client shall promptly notify the Consultant of the identity of the VE and shall define the VE's scope of services. All recommendations of the VE shall be given to the Consultant for review, and adequate time will be provided for the Consultant to respond to these recommendations. If the Consultant objects to any recommendations made by the 45 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan 7/2/2019 Page 11 VE, it shall so state in writing to the Client, along with the reasons for objecting. If the Client, despite the Consultant's objections, requires the incorporation of changes in the Construction Documents, the Client agrees, fully permitted by law, to waive all claims against the Consultant and to indemnify and hold harmless the Consultant from any damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense, which arise about or because of the incor poration of such design changes required by the Client. In addition, the Consultant shall be compensated for services necessary to incorporate recommended value engineering changes into reports, drawings, specifications, bidding or other documents. The Consultant shall be compensated as Additional Service for all time spent to prepare for, review and respond to the recommendations of the VE. The Consultant's time for performance of its services shall be equitably adjusted. V.Contractor Insurance and Indemnity Requirements· The Client agrees, in any construction contracts about this Project, to require all contractors of any tier to carry statutory Workers Compensation, Employers Liability Insurance and appropriate limits of Commercial General Liability Insurance (CGL). The Client further agrees to require all contractors to have their CGL policies endorsed to name the Client, the Consultant and its subconsultants as Additional lnsured's and to provide Contractual Liability coverage enough to insure the hold harmless and indemnity obligations assumed by the contractors. The Client shall require all contractors to furnish to the Client and the Consultant certificates of insurance as evidence of the required insurance prior to commencing work and upon renewal of each policy during the entire period of construction. In addition, the Client shall require that all contractors will, fully permitted by law, indemnify and hold harmless the Client, the Consultant and its subconsultants from and against any damages, liabilities or costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs, arising out of or in any way connected with the Project, including all claims by employees of the contractors. Eric, we look forward to this opportunity to work with you. Please review the agreement and call me if you have any questions. Thank you! Sincerely, Kurt W. Carlson, ASLA Senior Principal CA PLA 2342, AZ PLA 54111 KWC: ms 46 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan Scope and Fee Matrix 7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A' Phase 1 I Site Analysis and Research 1.1 Kick-off Meeting 1.2 LMD Meeting w City Council (1) 1.3 Identify Project Issues / Concerns 1.4 Review previous studies, reports, etc. 1.5 Base Maps Preparation 1.6a Site Visit & Analysis/ Twin Peaks 1.6b Site Visit & Analysis/ Espola 1.7a Opportunity and Constraints Plan for Twin Peaks Road 1.7b Opportunity and Constraints Plan for Espola Road 1.8 Meeting with City and LMD (1) 1.9 Deliverables/Project Management Hours Summary KTUA Subtotal Phase 2 I Landscape Concept Development 2.la Develop Twin Peaks Road Concept plans 2.lb Develop Espola Road Concept plans 2.2 Community Character Imagery 2.3 Meet w/ City Staff (1 )/ Revisions/ Respond to comments 2.4 Meeting w/ City Staff and LMD (1 )/ Revisions/ Respond to comments 2.5 Deliverables/Project Management Hours Summary KTUA Subtotal Phase 3 I Comm unity Workshop 3.1 Meeting with City and LMD (1) 3.2 Prepare Cost Estimates for Concepts 3.3 Prepare Community Survey for input 3.4a Twin Peaks-Workshop Prep/ Boards Community Workshop/Present Plans Senior Senior Associate Principal Associate I II $175.00 $145.00 $135.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 3 3 7 26 33 $1,225 $3,770 $4,455 8 12 8 12 4 2 3 4 2 3 6 2 4 4 6 27 42 $1,050 $3,915 $5,670 2 2 4 8 2 6 3 6 8 Senior KTU+A Designer II Clerical TOTAL $115.00 $80.00 $640 $640 4 $875 $560 10 $1,980 5 $1,975 5 $1,975 9 $1,855 9 $1,855 $910 3 $1,440 45 1 $5,175 $80 $14,705 check $14,705 24 $5,540 24 $5,540 9 $1,720 4 $1,785 8 $2,515 4 $2,010 73 1 $8,395 $80 $19,110 check $19,110 $560 $1,660 $1,100 8 $3,395 47 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan ktu ,. Scope and Fee Matrix 7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A' 3.4b Espola -Workshop Prep/ Boards Community Workshop/Present Plans 3.5 Summarize Both Workshops 3.6 Meetings with City and LMD (2) 3.7 Deliverables/Project Management Hours Summary KTUA Subtotal Phase 4 I Final Master Landscape Plans 4.1a Finalize Twin Peaks Road Concept plans 4.lb Finalize Espo1a Road Concept plans 4.2 Plant Palette Recommendations 4.3 Prepare Cost Estimates for Both LMPs 4.4 Phasing Plans 4.5 Meetings with City and LMD (2) 4.6 Deliverables/Project Management Hours Summary KTUA Subtotal Labor Summary Total Hours Total Labor Reimbursable Summary Phase 1 I Site Analysis and Research Phase 2 I Landscape Concept Development Phase 3 I Community Workshop Phase 4 I Final Master Landscape Plans PROJECT SUMMARY Phase 5 I Additional/ Optional Tasks (if required) Senior Senior Principal Associate I $175.00 $145.00 3 6 2 2 4 3 9 29 $1,575 $4,205 2 6 2 6 2 4 2 2 6 3 9 28 $1,575 $4,060 Associate II $135.00 8 2 4 4 42 $5,670 6 6 8 10 4 12 4 50 $6,750 Senior KTU+A Designer II Clerical TOTAL $115.00 $80.00 8 $3,395 2 $790 $1,470 2 $1,460 20 1 $2,300 $80 $13,830 check $13,830 8 $2,950 8 $2,950 8 $2,930 2 $1,725 2 $1,060 8 $3,760 4 2 $1,770 40 2 $4,600 $160 $17,145 check $17,145 $64,790 check $64,790 Urnt Quantity Total 250 250 250 1 250 $250 $250 $250 $250 Total Reimbursable Cost $1,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 48 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan Scope and Fee Matrix 7/2/2019 'EXHIBIT A' 5.1 Prep and Community Workshop (Cost er each workshop) 5.2a Irrigation Site Analysis -Twin Peaks Rd 5.2b Irrigation Site Analysis -Espola Rd 5.2c Irrigation Recommendation Reports and Dia rams/Both Sites 5.3a Prepare 3D Models for Concepts (2 total) 5.3b Finalize 30 Models after Comments/Revisions 5.4 Provide Funding Resource Ideas Hours Summary KTUA Subtotal Senior Principal $175.00 4 10 $1,750 Senior Associate I $145.00 6 8 8 3 8 2 4 39 $5,655 Note: Optional topographical survey for base maps not priced Associate II $135.00 10 6 8 4 6 34 $4,590 Senior KTU+A Designer II Clerical TOTAL $115.00 $80.00 8 $3,840 8 $2,255 8 $2,255 8 $2,340 32 $6,095 12 $2,385 $1,565 76 0 $8,740 $0 $20,735 check $20,735 49 of 51 August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 50 of 51 ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 19- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TASK ORDER TO THE AS-NEEDED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KTUA FOR LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN SERVICES IN THE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $86,525, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Poway (City) manages five landscape maintenance districts (LMDs) throughout the City pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; WHEREAS, the City’s LMDs require various services to ensure well-maintained landscaped areas; WHEREAS, landscape architectural services are vital and essential for the operation of the City and the various projects needed for the City to operate efficiently; WHEREAS, on May 21, 2019, the City Council approved an Agreement with KTUA to provide as-needed landscape architectural design services for a maximum term of five years ending May 31, 2024, with the understanding that any task orders in excess of $50,000 be presented to the City Council for approval; WHEREAS, the City seeks to complete a landscape master plan for the Twin Peaks and Espola community areas to ensure the long-term viability of these LMD areas; WHEREAS, the Agreement between the City and KTUA allows KTUA to undertake projects on a task order basis; WHEREAS, on July 2, 2019, KTUA outlined a scope of work, schedule, and cost estimate (“Proposal”) for assistance with the completion of the Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan task order; WHEREAS, KTUA will perform no services until the City Manager or designee has approved the proposed specific task order and a written Notice to Proceed (NTP) is prepared and sent to KTUA prior to commencement of services; WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the operating budget for the respective LMD’s contract services fund; and WHEREAS, KTUA’s Proposal is attached to the City Council Agenda Report as Attachment 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows: SECTION 1: That the Twin Peaks and Espola Community Master Plan Task Order in the amount of $86,525.00, is hereby approved. August 6, 2019, Item #5.1 Resolution No. 19- Page 2 51 of 51 SECTION 2: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any necessary documents. SECTION 3: That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage and shall continue in full force and effect until modified, revoked or replaced. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 6th day of August, 2019 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: ______________________________ Steve Vaus, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Faviola Medina, CMC, City Clerk August 6, 2019, Item #5.1