HomeMy WebLinkAboutFunds to Renovate Landscape and Lighting District 53- O3 >
CITY OF PALM DESERT / PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration to Assist Landscape and Lighting Districts with
Funds to Renovate Outdated Landscape Areas
SUBMITTED BY: Martin Alvarez, Senior Management Analyst
DATE: November 13, 2003
CONTENTS: Exhibit "A", Tables 1-1, 1-2
Recommendation:
By Minute Motion:
1. That the City Council appropriate the amount of $369,476, from Fund 400
Unobligated Funds to redesign, and renovate landscaping and lighting districts
with efficient landscaping and irrigation systems.
2. That the Agency Board appropriate the following funds to redesign, and renovate
landscaping and lighting districts with efficient landscaping and irrigation
systems, as follows: $96,634 from Project Area No. 1 Unobligated Funds;
$252,845 from Project Area No. 2 Unobligated Funds; and appropriate $16,304
from Project Area No. 3 Unobligated Funds.
3. That the City Council authorize staff to proceed with initiating balloting for those
landscape and lighting districts that are willing to modify their annual assessment
to match new maintenance costs after renovation.
4. That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with
Munifinancial to prepare Engineer's Reports, budgets and ballots proceedings for
those districts willing to modify their levy.
Executive Summary:
The City's landscape and lighting districts are currently experiencing a decrease in level
of service due to insufficient funds in each district's budget. Several districts have
requested assistance from the City to renovate their outdated landscaping areas in
order to reduce maintenance costs.
Eighteen landscape and lighting districts have been identified in need of renovation.
The renovation proposal includes renovating outdated lush landscape districts with
water efficient plants and irrigation systems.
• The estimated cost to redesign and renovate 12 districts located outside of a
RDA Project Area is estimated at $369,476, including a 15% contingency.
• The estimated cost to renovate six districts located within RDA Project Areas is
$365,783, including a 15% contingency.
Staff Report
Landscape and Lighting District Renovations
November 13, 2003
If approved, these funds would be available only to those districts that first approve a
ballot to modify their existing levy to match the new maintenance costs after renovation.
The estimated renovation costs and new budgets are outlined in the attached Tables 1-
1 and 1-2. With participation from the City, RDA and the residents, staff believes that
these outdated landscaping areas can be brought into conformance with the City
standards and annual maintenance and utility costs can be reduced.
Discussion:
In 1996, Proposition 218 required that all local governments receive approval from the
voters when creating or modifying a landscape and lighting district levy. In 2002, the
City had 24 of its 28 landscape and lighting districts operating with an annual deficit. As
required by Proposition 218, the City balloted these districts requesting an increase to
their annual levy to cover the re-occurring shortages. Only four of the 24 districts
approved a levy increase. As a result, the City reduced the level of service within the
remaining districts to match their annual assessment. In most districts, the deficits have
prevented the watering and mowing of turf areas, reseeding and the pruning of shrubs
and trees.
Over the last several months, staff has received numerous phone calls, correspondence
and visits from residents concerning the appearance of their districts. Some districts
have organized petitions requesting consideration of a higher level of service with a
possible levy increase. Another district has requested that the City assist in renovating
their outdated lush landscaping with water efficient landscaping. In turn the residents
would consider a levy increase to pay for maintenance cost after renovation.
The condition of most districts that incur higher maintenance costs is associated with
the type of irrigation systems and plant materials installed when they were developed.
Most districts were created with not only lush plant materials and turf areas, but with low
annual assessments insufficient to cover escalating annual maintenance costs.
Renovation Proposal:
Staff has developed a long-term solution that will assist in addressing the condition of
these landscape and lighting districts and stabilize the annual maintenance costs. The
proposal consists of renovating 18 districts that currently have outdated landscaping
and irrigation with water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems.
Exhibit "A" outlines 18 districts that in need of renovation. The exhibit describes the
existing landscaping type, square footage, percent of renovation required and general
recommendations. Two additional tables have been developed that summarize costs to
redesign and renovate and estimated annual levies after renovation. These tables are
attached as Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.
The redesign and renovation of these 18 districts is estimated at $639,354. Staff met
with the RDA to determine the feasibility of using RDA funds to finance these capital
improvements. The use of RDA funds is feasible when the districts are within a RDA
2
Staff Report
Landscape and Lighting District Renovations
November 13, 2003
Project Area. Table 1-1 also identifies that 6 of the 18 districts fall within a RDA Project
Area and estimated $318,071 can be funded by the Redevelopment Agency.
By using both City and RDA funds, the condition and efficiency of these districts can be
improved. With a one time capital improvement to retrofit these districts with water
efficient landscaping and irrigations systems, the cost of maintenance can be lowered.
In five of the 18 districts no change to the annual levy would be necessary to maintain a
desertscape. In the other minor modification to the levies would be necessary to pay for
annual maintenance cost. The end result is an improvement to the City's over-all
aesthetic appearance and a reduction in maintenance and water usage.
Resident Participation:
If the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board authorizes the use of funds to
renovate these districts, staff will meet with the districts to explain this option and the
estimated new levies. Funds would be made available to all districts with a condition
that they approve a modification to their annual levy to cover the new maintenance cost.
With modifications to annual levies and the implementation of cost of living adjustments,
maintenance costs and annual levies can be matched.
Staff has prepared estimated budgets for new maintenance costs after renovation.
These new annual budgets and new levies are outlined in Table 1-2 (Renovated
Landscape and Lighting District Budgets). This table also includes a comparison
between each district's existing levy and proposed levy after renovation. Staff believes
that the maintenance cost after renovation will be more accepted by the residents, than
the current high cost for lush landscapes.
Conclusion:
With participation from the City, RDA and the residents, the diminishing appearance of
the City's landscaping and lighting districts and high maintenance cost can be
remedied. Staff is proposing a one time capital improvement of these districts to fit into
our current landscaping and water usage goals. By investing in these districts, staff
believes that the residents will be willing to modify their annual levies to pay for a new
maintenance cost after renovation. This plan will not only improve the over all
appearance of our neighborhoods, but will it eliminating the district's dependency on the
City's General Fund.
3
Staff Report
Landscape and Lighting District Renovations
November 13, 2003
Submitted By: Departure ead:
•
artin Alvarez Homer Croy
Senior Management Analyst ACM for Dev ment Services
Approval:
P . 14,a1
avid Yri n d us in McCarthy
Director Redevelopment AC for Redevelop ent
Approval:
a6(f/A -
Paul Gibson Carlos L. Ort
Finance Director City Manager Executive Director
kfrO d BY RDA
ON i 113.63
VERIFIED BY
Original on file with y Clerk's Office
CITY COUNCIL-ACTION:
APPROVED ✓✓ DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETINO pATE I I - 13"cz3
AYES:( ' ( ,re 1,4,W, Ketly ,Sp Ejei F5ens6n
NOES: Nam .
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Ink-
VERIFIED
BY: W-O eti r 1"�
Oriainal on File itVV� .�., it,7 Clerk' s Office
4
EXHIBIT "A" •
Landscape and Lighting Districts
Renovation List
Name Landscaping Type and Conditions Square Redesign Renovation Recommendations
Footage
Waring Court Turf and Lush Shrubs 12,262 100% Complete Renovation, Save Some
Trees
Palm Gate Outdated Desert, Missing Shrubs 7,320 100% Complete Renovation
Portola Place Turf Lush Shrubs 5,881 100% Complete Renovation, Save Some
Trees
Desert Mirage Turf and Lush Shrubs Old Irrigation 22,998 100% Complete Renovation
K & B Palm Old Landscaping, Irrigation, Turf Basin 43,628 100% Complete Renovation
Desert
Primrose II Outdated Landscaping and Irrigation 5,370 80% Keep Trees, Renovate Shrubs and
Irrigation
Monterey Desert Older, Palms 3,160 75% Renovated Entrances, Renovate
Meadows Shrubs and Irrigation
The Glen Old Desert Landscaping 8,248 100% Complete Renovation, Re-Grading
Hovley Estates Turf Retention, Old Irrigation 15,400 75% Renovate Retention Basin, Irrigation
and Some Shrubs
Sonata I Outdated Desert Landscaping 10,044 100% Complete Renovation
Sonata II Turf, Lush Shrubs and Palms 19,500 100% Complete Renovation
Hovley Turf Retention, Older Irrigation and Landscape 22,120 90% Renovate Retention, Irrigation and
Collection Some Shrubs
La Paloma Desert-scape, Turf Retention 6,830 90% Renovate Retention, Irrigation and
Some Shrubs
La Paloma II Desert-scape, Turf Retention 6,830 90% Renovate Retention, Irrigation and
Some Shrubs
La Paloma III Newer Desert Landscaping 9,310 30% Replace Some Shrubs, Need
Maintenance
Sandpiper Court Newer Desert Landscaping, Turf Retention 10,100 65% Renovate Retention, Replace Some
Shrubs
Sandpiper West Newer Desert Landscaping, Turf Retention 10,100 65% Renovate Retention, Replace Some
Shrubs
Hovley West Newer Desert Landscaping, Over planted 12,675 30% Remove Some Shrubs
TABLE 1-1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT ESTIMATED RENOVATION COSTS
Re-Design Renov.
LLD Name Units Shrub Sqft Turf Sqft Reten. Turf Total Sqft % Renov. (.30c/Sgft) ($3/Sqft) TOTAL RDA P.A.
Waring Court 16 2,700 9,562 N/A 12,262 100% $3,679 $36,786 $40,465 1
Palm Gate 37 7,320 N/A N/A 7,320 100% $2,196 $21 ,960 $24,156 1
Portola Place 23 2,761 3,120 N/A 5,881 100% $1,764 $17,643 $19,407 1
Desert Mirage 29 16,120 6,878 N/A 22,998 100% $6,899 $68,994 $75,893 2
K & B 163 19,833 N/A 23,795 43,628 100% $13,088 $130,884 $143,972 2
Primrose II 37 5,370 N/A N/A 5,370 80% $1,289 $12,888 $14,177 3
Mont.Meadows 40 3,160 N/A N/A 3,160 75% $711 $5,688 $6,399 N/A
The Glen 16 8,248 N/A N/A 8,248 100% $2,474 $24,744 $27,218 N/A
Hovley Estates _ 16 6,750 8,650 N/A 15,400 75% $3,465 $34,650 $38,115 N/A
Sonata I 16 10,044 N/A N/A 10,044 100% $3,013 $30,132 $33,145 N/A
Sonata II 94 13,200 6,300 N/A 19,500 100% $5,850 $58,500 $64,350 N/A
Hovley Collection 38 5,800 N/A 16,320 22,120 90% $5,972 $49,770 $55,742 N/A
La Paloma 16 330 N/A 6,500 6,830 90% $1,844 $15,368 $17,212 N/A
La Paloma II 16 330 N/A 6,500 6,830 90% $1,844 $15,368 $17,212 N/A
La Paloma III 15 9,310 N/A N/A 9,310 30% $838 $27,930 $28,768 N/A
Sandpiper Court 16 3,600 N/A 6,500 10,100 65% $1,970 $12,120 $14,090 N/A
Sandpiper West 16 3,600 N/A 6,500 10,100 65% $1,970 $12,120 $14,090 N/A
Hovley West 16 12,675 N/A N/A 12,675 30% $1 ,141 $3,803 $4,943 N/A
TOTALS 131,151 34,510 66,115 231,776 N/A $60,007 $579,347 $639,354 $318,071
10/30/2003
TABLE 1-2
CITY OF PALM DESERT
RENOVATED LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT BUDGETS New Annual
Tree Repair Street Sub- Grand Existing New Annual Levy Increase /
LLD Name Units Sgft. Maint. Water Pruning Extras Lights Admin Total Reserve Total Levy Per DU Levy Per DU Decrease
Waring Court 16 12,262 $2,943 $1,226 $950 $400 $0 $940 $6,459 $645.91 $7,104.99 $417.04 $444.06 $27.02
Palm Gate 37 7,320 $1,757 $732 $1,200 $500 $350 $750 $5,289 $528.88 $5,817.68 $69.16 $157.23 $88.07
Portola Place 23 5,881 $1,411 $650 $500 $550 $0 $850 $3,961 $396.14 $4,357.58 $188.59 $189.46 $0.87
Desert Mirage 29 22,998 $5,520 $2,300 $800 $800 $400 $800 $10,619 $2,123.86 $12,743.18 $71.32 $73.24 $1.92
Kaufman &
Broad 163 43,628 $10,471 $4,363 $1,600 $600 $300 $1,700 $19,034 $1,903.35 $20,936.87 $57.24 $128.45 $71.21
Primrose II 37 5,370 $1,396 $700 $650 $600 $250 $1,200 $4,796 $1,438.86 $6,235.06 $167.58 $168.52 $0.94
Monterey
Meadows 40 3,160 $758 $350 $425 $347 $350 $850 $3,080 $308.04 $3,388.44 $84.71 $84.71 $0.00
The Glen 16 8,248 $1,980 $825 $550 $500 $0 $601 $4,455 $445.53 $4,900.85 $141.28 $306.30 $165.02
Hovley Estates 16 15,400 $3,696 $1,540 $575 $500 $160 $740 $7,211 $721.10 $7,932.10 $256.72 $495.76 $239.04
Sonata I 16 10,044 $2,411 $1,004 $800 $500 $250 $623 $5,588 $558.80 $6,146.76 $137.18 $384.17 $246.99
Sonata II 94 19,500 $4,680 $1,950 $800 $500 $160 $1,035 $9,125 $912.50 $10,037.50 $45.99 $106.78 $60.79
Hovley
Collection 38 22,120 $5,309 $2,212 $1,100 $500 $250 $850 $10,221 $1,022.08 $11,242.88 $123.33 $295.87 $172.54
La Paloma 16 6,830 $1,639 $683 $250 $400 $150 680 $3,802 $380.22 $4,182.42 $198.14 $261.40 $63.26
La Paloma II 16 6,830 $1,639 $700 $350 $500 $150 $1,000 $4,339 $433.92 $4,773.12 $372.79 $298.32 -$74.47
La Paloma III 15 9,310 $2,234 $931 $250 $400 $200 $760 $4,775 $477.54 $5,252.94 $271.77 $350.20 $78.43
Sandpiper
Court 16 10,100 $2,424 $1,010 $300 $400 $150 $870 $5,154 $515.40 $5,669.40 $352.14 $354.34 $2.20
Sandpiper West 16 10,100 $2,424 $1,010 $300 $400 $150 $870 $5,154 $515.40 $5,669.40 $352.14 $354.34 $2.20
Hovley West 16 12,675 $3,042 $1,268 $400 $400 $150 $790 $6,050 $604.95 $6,654.45 $287.16 $415.90 $128.74
.24 cents .10 cents
/ sqft. / /sqft. /
yr. yr.
10/30/2003