HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 1999 E-14 PHOF
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONIF IViP
AGENDA TITLE: Set Public Hearing for September 15, 1999 to Consider a Resolution to Establish a
Policy and Fee for Fence and Landscape Maintenance in New Developments
MEETING DATE: September 1, 1999
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council set a public hearing for September 15, 1999 to
consider a resolution to establish a policy and fee for the maintenance of
fence and landscape improvements in new developments with reverse
frontage lots.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Previous City policy required new developments having reverse
frontage lots to provide a reverse frontage wall/fence at the back of
walk and a 10 -foot landscapeeasement for tree planting on the
parcels behind the wall. The developer was responsible for the cost
of the trees in the landscape easement and, if the wall were to be publicly maintained, was also required
to pay a one-time lump sum fee of $2.75 per linear foot for the maintenance of the wall. Maintenance of
the trees in the landscape easement was the responsibility of the homeowner.
Current City requirements regarding reverse frontage fences and landscaping have evolved to include
masonry walls with irrigated landscape areas. This has necessitated establishment of a more
comprehensive policy and fee for the maintenance and replacement of these improvements.
The draft report and policy, including a fee recommendation, for funding maintenance and replacement
of fences, walls, landscaping and irrigation improvements prepared by Harris & Associates is attached
as Exhibit A. Local developers and engineers affected by the report have been notified and an
informational meeting has been scheduled for 7 p.m. August 30, 1999, at the Lodi Library.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
'aJ8
Richard C. Prima, Jx,�
Public Works Director
Prepared by Sharon A. Welch, Senior Civil Engineer
RCP/SAW/Im
Attachment
cc: Senior Civil Engineer— Development Services
Harris & Associates
Mailing List
APPROVED:
H.'Dixon Flynn --
CSETPHFNC&LNDSCPMAINTFEEPOL
08/24/99
August 19,1999
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
City of Lodi, Public Works Department
221 West Pine Street
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, California 95241-1910
EXHIBIT A
Harris & Associates
Program Managers
Construction Managers
Civil Engineers
Subject: Letter Report and Draft Policy on Alternatives for Funding Maintenance and
Replacement of Fences, Walls, Landscaping and Irrigation Improvements in
Subdivisions with Reverse Frontage Lots
Dear Mr. Prima:
In accordance with the Public Services Agreement, Task Order No. 3, between the City of Lodi
and Harris & Associates, please consider this a "draft" letter report which summarizes the
various approaches available to the City to maintain and replace fences, walls, landscaping and
irrigation systems on reverse frontage lots along arterial streets adjacent to new residential
subdivisions. This report provides information and analysis on four (4) possible alternatives that
could be used to fund the maintenance obligation: 1) One-time, lump sum payment, 2)
Formation of Homeowners Associations (HOA), 3) Formation of assessment districts under the
1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 or 4) Formation of Community Facilities Districts
under the 1982 Mello -Roos Act. The implications of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600),
Proposition 218 and SB 919 for these alternatives will also be addressed.
Based upon the analysis provided herein, attached please find a "draft" Policy on Funding
Maintenance of Walls Fences, Landscaping and Irrigation Improvements in Subdivisions with
Reverse Frontage Lots.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1: ONE-TIME, LUMP SUM PAYMENT
One -Time, Lump Sum Payment Concept
This alternative would provide that the land developer make a one-time, lump sum payment as
a condition of approval of the Tentative or Final Subdivision Map and prior to the recordation of
the Final Map, as the means for the City to guarantee maintenance and replacement of fences,
walls, landscaping and irrigation improvements in perpetuity. This could be viewed strictly as a
condition imposed on the Map or treated as a "voluntary contribution in lieu of formation of a
35 East 10th Street, Suite A Tracy, California 95376 209.833.3310 FAX 209.833.1624 tracy@harris-assoc.com
2.
Homeowners Association, Landscape, Lighting District or a Community Facilities District." If
this alternative is selected, it is suggested that this form of language be used as part of the
condition of approval.
The lump sum payment would be made to the City, deposited in a special fund/account and
invested in instruments in accordance with the City's investment policy. Interest earned on
investment would assist in covering increased maintenance cost in the future.
Lump Sum Formula and Costs
Harris, in conjunction with City staff, determined that a present worth analysis would be the
most equitable methodology to determine the one-time lump sum contribution. Based on the
present worth analysis, Harris recommends that the lump sum, or principal payment, by
owners/developers be $49 per lineal foot, which will provide sufficient funding for maintenance
and replacement for 30 years. See Appendix A for the analysis and background information,
including the typical cross-section.
The present worth analysis was based on assumptions as follows and as noted in Appendix A.
Based upon actual landscape maintenance contracts already in place, and assuming an 8.5 -
foot wide landscape strip, the landscape maintenance cost in the City of Lodi for FY 1999-2000
is $1.55 per linear foot. See Appendix A, Table 2, for the cost data, and Appendix A, Figure 1
for the typical landscaping cross-section. Using this figure, an inflation rate of 3% and an
interest (or discount) rate of 5% were applied to the annual maintenance and replacement
costs. The present worth of wall maintenance costs remains $2.75 per linear foot, as approved
by City Council on September 1, 1993. A reserve amount of thirty (30%) percent has been
included to cover extraordinary and unpredictable maintenance and/or replacement event
costs.
Statutory Implications
The one-time, lump sum payment concept has no statutory implications. It is not a fee related
to capital improvements, so it is exempt from AB 1600. It is not an assessment, so it is exempt
from Proposition 218 and SB919, and it is not a talc similar to what would be involved with a
Community Facilities District.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
Homeowner Association Concept
The City could require, as a condition of approval of a Final Map, the formation of Homeowner
Associations, which would assess and collect either monthly or annual fees from homeowners
to pay for maintenance and replacement of fences, walls, landscaping and irrigation
improvements. The City would not be involved in the establishment, modification or collection
of HOA maintenance/replacement fees.
This approach would require that landscaped areas be in private easements, not in public right
of way. While the easement would be privately owned, the City should condition the Final Map
to review and approve the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to ensure that the
easements are legally proper and also to optionally provide that the City has the right to enter
the private easement areas to perform landscaping services, with a charge back to the HOA, in
3.
the event the landscaping improvements substantially deteriorate below City Standards. The
City would need to be named a third -party beneficiary in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions.
Both the City and the developer(s) should determine if they wish to delegate the maintenance of
major landscaping improvements along arterial streets to private Homeowner Associations,
over which they have little or no control.
Statutory Implications
HOA landscape maintenance and replacement fees would be privately established, assessed
and collected. City involvement would not be required, so there would be no statutory
implications.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3:1972 LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
Assessment District Concept
As with the other alternatives, the City must be assured that an appropriate funding mechanism
is in place to cover the costs of maintenance and replacement of fences, walls, landscaping,
and irrigation improvements. The City may wish to consider the formation of 1972 Landscaping
and Lighting District in order to cover these costs. This could be done in one of two different
ways, as follows:
1. Formation of a new district prior to the City approving the Tentative Map or the Final Map.
The City Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to create a new landscaping and
lighting maintenance district, and hold a public hearing at least 45 days after adopting the
Resolution of Intention. All landowners within the district boundaries will be given a ballot to
vote on forming a new district. For a new subdivision on raw land, the owner/developer
would typically be the only person voting. In order to minimize the delay in approving the
Final Map, the owner/developer should obtain approval of the project's Engineer's Report
for the creation of the district at the earliest opportunity (ideally no later than the end of the
second plan check), so that the public hearing process can be expedited. The Final Map
cannot be approved by the City Council until the City has received a positive vote for
formation of the district and the public hearing for district formation has been held by the
City Council.
2. Deposit funds for the maintenance and replacement of fences, walls, landscaping and
irrigation improvements pending formation of a new district.
The owner/developer would make a cash deposit with the City in the amount as shown on
Appendix A, Table 1, which would be refunded upon the successful conclusion of district
formation. This option would avoid any delay in the approval of the Final Map. This form of
"bonding" would have to be included as a special condition in the subdivision improvement
agreement. This "bond" would be placed in a non-interest bearing account. The Resolution
of Intention for the public hearing would be approved concurrently with the Final Map.
The attached flow chart shows the 1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District formation
procedure. (See Appendix B)
4.
District formation costs, which may vary from $5,000 to $8,000, and annual service costs of
roughly $5,000, can be included/spread in the asse"ssment amounts. To avoid future balloting
to accommodate maintenance cost increases, it is -advisable to -include a cost escalator at the
time of district formation. The regional Consumer Price Index can be used for this purpose.
Additionally, it is advisable to include a reserve amount to handle extraordinary and
unpredictable maintenance and replacement events or cost increases. The 1972 Act permits a
maximum 50% reserve amount for cash flow purposes. Homebuyers are advised of the
assessment as part of disclosures required on title reports during escrow.
District formation is dependent solely upon the majority of ballots (one ballot per assessed
parcel/lot) returned not being against formation. Therefore, the formation process is
considerably easier when dealing only with the property owner(s)/developer(s). Such districts
are more difficult to form when a portion or all of the subdivision has been developed and
homeowners may outnumber the property owner(s)/developers.
Dissolution of a Landscaping and Lighting District is provided for in the 1972 Act. The district is
also subject to referendum under provisions of Proposition 218. Further, any subsequent,
proposed increases in the assessment amounts or ,changes in assessment methodology not
included in the original formation are subject to a new balloting procedure and could be voted
down by the then homeowners.
Statutory Implications
The 1972 Act is an assessment district law that falls within the purview of Proposition 218 and
SB 919. There is one additional implication worth noting. The 1972 Act requires a spread of
assessments within the district formed. However, Proposition 218 requires that other properties
outside the district may also receive benefit from the landscaping improvements (such as
properties on the opposite side of arterial streets) and must be assessed. Since the
landscaping improvements would be located along arterial streets, and the general public uses
these streets, there is a "general benefit" which also must be assessed against the general
public. The City would be required to pay this assessment.
ALTERATIVE NO. 4: MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
Community Facilities District Concept
Formation of Community Facilities Districts (CFD) is another option for the City. A CFD
Maintenance District is not an assessment district, rather it is a "special tax" district. A tax
formula would need to be established to determine the amount of CFD "tax levy" on the parcels
within the subdivision affected. In this case, the district proceeds pay for on-going maintenance
and replacement of fences, walls, landscaping and irrigation improvements, so there is no
bonded debt for capital improvements. The tax is more akin to an annual service fee. The
formation process is similar to the process required for the Landscaping and Lighting District,
except that with a single owner/developer, notice provisions can be waived and the balloting
completed in fifteen (15) days as opposed to forty-five (45) days. Formation and annual service
costs, which should be somewhat less than the Landscape and Lighting District, can also be
included in the annual special tax. The same two altemative ways of handling district formation
and approval of the Final Map as indicated for the 1972 Act can be employed with a CFD.
5.
Disclosure requirements for CFD tax levies consist of a special form that the prospective
homebuyer must sign prior to close of escrow.
A CFD essentially implies that the maximum tax needed ta'support the landscape maintenance
and replacement effort should be adopted because the district is perpetual, and no changes or
amendments can be made once it is formed. An annual cost escalator can be included in a
CFD Maintenance District; however, it is typically no more than 2% because of State
constitutional implications. There is no statutory limit on the reserve amount which can be
included in the special tax.
CFD formation can be very straightforward when dealing only with the property owner(s)/
developer(s) because the required Special Election can be accomplished with a property
owners vote if there are less than twelve (12) registered voters within the proposed boundaries.
If the proposed CFD boundaries include twelve (12) or more registered voters, which might
likely be the case in completed or partially completed subdivisions, a Special Election must be
held between 90 and 180 days following City Council adoption of the Resolution of Formation.
There are no specific dissolution procedures for CFD's, therefore, they are considered to be
permanent. However, they are subject to referendum in accordance with provisions of
Proposition 218. Such districts are exempt from referendum only if they are formed to bond
debt for capital projects. In this case, the CFD would be a maintenance district and would not
be exempt from referendum.
The attached flow chart shows the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District formation
procedure. (See Appendix C).
Statutory Implications
Again, a CFD is a special tax district, so AB1600, Proposition 218 and SB919 do not apply,
except as noted above with regard to referenda. Because it is a tax, any cost escalator should
be no more than 2% per year to avoid potential conflict with Article XIII of the California
Constitution (Proposition 13).
Please review this information and call me to let me know when you would like to meet and
discuss it further.
Attachments: Appendix A: Present Worth Analysis for One -Time, Lump Sum Payment for FY
1999-2000
Appendix B: 1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District Formation Procedure
Appendix C: Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Formation Procedure
Draft Policy on Funding of Maintenance of Walls, Fences and Landscaping
Improvements in Subdivisions with Reverse Frontage Lots.
APPENDIX A:
Present Worth Analysis for One -Time, Lump Sum
Payment for FY 1999=2000
Appendix A
Table 1
Present Worth Analysis
for a
One-time Lump Sum Payment
for
Landscape Wall Maintenance on Reverse Frontage Lots
Effective through June 30, 2000
Rm = $ 1.55 = Annual Landscape Maintenance Costs
j = 3% = Inflation per period
(inflation rate, r = i+ j = 1.03)
i = 5% = Interest rate per period
R,,m _ $ 2.75 = Present Worth Lump Sum Wall Maintenance Cost per LF (1998)
(adopted by City Council September 1, 1993)
• Total Lump Sum Cost rounded to whole dollars
General Notes:
1. Maintenance costs shown above are costs per linear foot and are based on
a standard width of approximately 8.5 feet
2. Maintenance costs shown above do not include costs for maintenance and
replacement of lighting of landscaped areas or lettering and facia of
subdivision entryway monument markers and signs.
3. The 30% Reserve Fund is for Extraordinary Maintenance and Replacement Costs
4. The Present Worth (PW) of the Landscape Maintenance Costs is based on the
following equations from the Standard Handbook of Engineering Calculations,
by Tyler G. Hicks, P.E. (c. 1985, page 12.5):
PW = (URSPW) x (R,)
URSPW = Uniform -Rate -Series Present -Worth Factor
r -i-1
R, = The first year's annual maintenance cost
(Rm) x (r)
Date Last Revised: August 19, 1999
Lump Sum Present Worth (per LF)
n years
Lump Sum
Landscape
Maintenance
Costs
Lump Sum
Wall
Maintenance
Costs
30%
Replacement
Costs
Total Lump
Sum Cost for
n years'
20
$25.49
$2.75
$8.47
$37
25
$30.48
$2.75
$9.97
$43
30
$35.00
$2.75
$11.33
$49 f-
40
$42.85
$2.75
$13.68
$59
50
$49.32
$2.75
$15.62
$68
75
$60.97
$2.75
$19.12
$83
100
$68.17
$2.75
$21.28
$92
• Total Lump Sum Cost rounded to whole dollars
General Notes:
1. Maintenance costs shown above are costs per linear foot and are based on
a standard width of approximately 8.5 feet
2. Maintenance costs shown above do not include costs for maintenance and
replacement of lighting of landscaped areas or lettering and facia of
subdivision entryway monument markers and signs.
3. The 30% Reserve Fund is for Extraordinary Maintenance and Replacement Costs
4. The Present Worth (PW) of the Landscape Maintenance Costs is based on the
following equations from the Standard Handbook of Engineering Calculations,
by Tyler G. Hicks, P.E. (c. 1985, page 12.5):
PW = (URSPW) x (R,)
URSPW = Uniform -Rate -Series Present -Worth Factor
r -i-1
R, = The first year's annual maintenance cost
(Rm) x (r)
Date Last Revised: August 19, 1999
Appendix A
Table 2
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 1999/2000
Location
Approximate
Area (SF)
Odyssey
Landscape
Company
($/SF)
Average Per
SF
Area Weighted
Average Per SF
Average Per LF
(8.5' Width)
Area Weighted
Average Per LF
Medians
Arundel Court
2,800
$392.5E
$0.14
$0.003
$1.19
$0.022
Bradford Circle
3,225
471.00
0.15
0.003
1.24
0.027
Dorchester Way
3,450
392.5E
0.11
0.003
0.97
0.022
Ham Lane, Kettleman-Harney
27,360
5,024.01
0.18
0.033
1.56
0.285
Lower Sacramento Road (all)
80,652
8,297.9E
0.10
0.055
0.87
0.470
Port Chelsea Circle
3,270
471.00
0.14
0.003
1.22
0.027
Shady Acres
800
471.00
0.59
0.003
5.00
0.027
Virginia Avenue (3)
1,400
596.5E
0.43
0.004
3.62
0.034
Vista Drive
375
471.00
1.26
0.003
10.68
0:027
Hutchins, Vineyard -Ramey
5,020
1,727.00
0.34
0.012
2.92
0.098
Central Avenue
2,970
2,198.00
0.74
0.015
6.29
0.125
Elm Street, Rose -California (3)
2,430
722.1:
0.30
0.005
2.53
0.041
Walkways
Bradford Circle
2,020
$408.1.r
$0.20
0.003
$1.72
$0.023
Brandywine
4,400
753.67
0.17
0.005
1.46
$0.043
Denby Drive
1,775
1,114.71
0.63
0.007
5.34
$0.063
Grenoble Drive
1,840
1,114.71
0.61
0.007
5.15
$0.063
Port Chelsea Circle (2)
2,760
1,193.1f
0.43
0.008
3.67
$0.068
Wimbledon Drive
850
345.42
0.41
0.002
3.45
$0.020
Turner Road @ Evergreen Dr.
2,600
1,193.64
0.46
0.008
__...
3.90
$0.068
4.:{>tir'•v:..: �. kb:;)::itiY'..
...... p!y�f.���.`{; ��g0.'Jh i
Y...{_y'
YJ'l�:{O^
Total
149,997
$26 164.69
�''.`t:?.'S5'.JOS.h.es#iatta:
. ,o-c:yu'o:
ifii,G'4'%Atb}�v}.^4�'y;
`.:`"��<4>''
$0.182
::.:::::.farmer.{rY.':':h7 •V.:}^..�.>iti:
$1.55
..G
Qj
VI
C_
0
i
a.
Appendix A
Figure 1
Standard Landscaping
Schematic Cross -Section
VAEZitrS
15' `
V`
1 � O
<� Lan45caping
- in
3.0'
0.5
min. 1 min.
7' wall Sidewalk C &
* The total landscaped wi�tb must be 8.5'
APPENDIX B:
1972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District Formation
Procedure
:....................................:..... _ ....... ;
i �1lc�st�75cfny,-priollo'
1.972 Act Landscaping and Lighting District
Formation Procedure
Proceedings Initialed
Engineer's Report Prepared
Adopt Resolution of Intention - Set Public Hearing
Mail Notice of Public Hearing and Ballot to each Properly Owner
If Majority of Ballots
are Against",
Abandon Proceedings
Publish Nolicc of Flearincd
Protest (-fearing Conducted
Ballots Tabulated
or
�''Oallols �rc......hfcdbj
usscssnicrif umouriL'/l
• prnte�f is aMijcir.�c% i(niui4' :. • "
(iJYCJ rpcitls:arc`voleappinsKlhc
1.1��' "• ;1 .1llr;•
'Asscstnicni;;'Oi�J�%•tiollot.: v:n(c1i
;aic.rgfumgd atoounfed.': .
w:1wp51cox1prop\F1owchr1.x1s 72 Act - 7119199
If Majority of Ballots are not Against*,
Adopt Resolution Establishing !lie
District and Levying Assessments
APPENDIX C:
Mello -Roos Community Facilities "District Formation
Procedure
..... ........... ........ . ..
V)
e-
3:
0
rLl
C -i
Lr
0
0
c
.7
r-3
0
T
0
0
-Z
I
11
O
L -
0
cl
0
CL
co....
............. I
CV)
CJ 0
o
sr
o
to :4
Q
b
rm c•
............... .
cl
Draft Policy
On Funding of Maintenance Of
Walls, Fences, Landscaping.-and Irrigation
lmprovements"
In Subdivisions with Reverse Frontage Lots.
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF LODI
POLICY ON FUNDING OF MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT OF WALLS, FENCES,
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN SUBDIVISIONS WITH REVERSE
FRONTAGE LOTS
The following policy shall provide options for the funding of on-going maintenance and replacement
of walls, fences, landscaping and irrigation improvements located in the street right of way along
major arterial roads and abutting reverse frontage lots in proposed subdivisions.
Before the City of Lodi approves a Final Subdivision Map, it must be assured that an appropriate
funding mechanism is in place to cover the on-going costs of wall, fence, irrigation and other
landscaping maintenance and operation. Owners/developers must choose one of the following
options to provide that funding:
1. One-time, lump sum payment: The owner/developer will be required, as a condition of Tentative
Map or Final Map approval, to make a lump sum prepayment in an amount as shown on
Attachment "A" for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, and updated and recalculated at the beginning of
every fiscal year thereafter to ensure perpetual funding for future maintenance and replacement
costs. A 30% Reserve Amount is included, which is updated annually, to cover extraordinary
and unpredictable maintenance, replacement events or cost increases. Annual updates of the
prepayment amount and Reserve Amount will be accomplished administratively and will be
based on changes in costs for maintenance of fences, walls, landscaping and irrigation
improvements. While the prepayment is a condition of the Final Map, it will be treated as a
voluntary contribution in lieu of formation of a Homeowners Association, a Landscape and
Lighting District or a Community Facilities District. The lump sum payment will be deposited in a
special fund/account and invested in instruments in accordance with the City's investment
policy.. Interest earned on the investment will be used to assist in covering future maintenance
and replacement costs.
2. Homeowners Association: The owner/developer will be required, as a condition of approval of
the Tentative Map or Final Map, to form a Homeowners Association which will assess and
collect fees from homeowners to pay for future maintenance costs. All fences, walls,
landscaping and irrigation improvements abutting reverse frontage lots and streets will be
required to be placed in private easements, not public right of way. The City will review and
approve the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to ensure that the deeds reflect common
ownership of the private easement(s) and that the City has the right to enter the private
easement(s) to perform landscape services, with charges to the Homeowners Association in the
event the landscaping improvements substantially deteriorate below City Standards.
3. 1972 Act Landscape and Lighting District: The Tentative Map or Final Map will be conditioned
with a requirement for the formation of a Landscape and Lighting District. Formation of such a
district may be accomplished in one of two ways:
a) Formation of a new district prior to the City approving a Tentative Map or Final Map.
The City Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to create a new landscape and
lighting district and hold a public hearing at least 45 days after adopting the
Exhibit "A", page 2
Resolution of Intention. All landowners in the district will be given a ballot to vote on
forming a district. In order to minimize the delay in approving the Final Map, the
owner/developer should obtain approval of 'the project's Engineer's Report for the
creation of the district at -the earliest opportunity. The Final Map cannot be approved
until the City has received a positive vote for formation of the district and the public
hearing for district formation has been held by the City Council.
b) Submit funds for the perpetual maintenance of landscaping improvements pending
formation of a new district.
The owner/developer must make a cash deposit with the City in the amount shown
as the One-time, lump sum payment on Attachment A, which will be refunded upon
the successful conclusion of district formation. This form of "bonding" will be
included as a special condition in the subdivision improvement agreement. The
"bond" will be placed in a non-interest bearing account. The Resolution of Intention
for the public hearing will be approved concurrently with the Final Map.
4. Mello Roos Community Facilities District: The Tentative Map or Final Map will be
conditioned to require the formation of a Community, Facilities District. Formation of
a Community Facilities Maintenance District will establish a tax formula for the
annual Community Facilities "special tax" levy on the parcels/lots within the
subdivisions which will be needed to cover future maintenance and replacement
costs for landscaping improvements. The formation process is similar to the process
required for the Landscaping and Lighting District, so the same two (2) alternative
ways of handling district formation and approval of the Final Map applicable to that
assessment district will apply to the Community Facilities District.
Attachment: Attachment A
Attachment A
One-time Lump Sum Payment
for
FY 1999/2000
Effective through June 30, 2000
Item Cost per LF
Annual Landscape Maintenance Cost = $ 1.55
Lump sum Wall Maintenance Cost $ 2.75
Lump sum payment per lineal foot $ 49.00
Based on Present Worth for Maintenance over 30 years
Notes:
1. Maintenance costs shown above are costs per linear foot and are based on
a standard width of approximately 8.5 feet.
2. Maintenance costs shown above do not include costs for maintenance and
replacement of lighting of landscaped areas or lettering and facia of
subdivision entryway monument markers and signs.
3. A 30% Reserve Fund is included for Extraordinary Maintenance and
Replacement Costs
CITY COUNCIL
KEITH LAND, Mayor
STEPHEN J. MANN
Mayor Pro Tempore
SUSAN HITCHCOCK
ALAN S. NAKANISHI
PHILLIP A. PENNINO
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6706
FAX (209) 333-6710
August 26, 1999
H. DIXON FLYNN
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
RANDALL A. HAYS
City Attorney
SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for September 15, 1999 to Consider a Resolution to
Establish a Policy and Fee for Fence and Landscape Maintenance in
New Developments
Enclosed is a copy of background information on an item on the City Council
agenda of Wednesday, September 1, 1999. This meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the
City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street.
The only action taken at this meeting will be to set a public hearing date on the item.
We are requesting that the public hearing on this item be set for the
September 15, 1999 Council Meeting.
If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council,
City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the
mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street.
If you wish to address the Council at the Council Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's
card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and
give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the
Council, please contact Alice Reimche, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702.
The Notice of Meeting sent to you earlier indicated the information packets showing the
alternatives for funding and the methodology used to determine fees would not be
available until August 30, 1999. However, we received the information earlier than
expected and have enclosed a copy for you.
If you have any questions about the item itself, please call either Sharon Welch,
Senior Civil Engineer with the City of Lodi, at (209) 333-6800, ext. 659, or
Jennifer Lathrop or Ron Creagh, of Hams & Associates, at (209) 833-3310.
,Qj 6
Richard C. Prima, Jr.
Public Works Director
RCP/Im
Enclosure
cc: City Clerk
Harris & Associates
NCSETPHFNC&LNDSCPMAINTFEEPOL.DOC
IIIIIIIIIIIIt 11111111 11111111111 11111111111111111111111IIII11111 (1111111111111111111111111111111
A FRED BAKER D & B KETTLEMAN PARTNERS DELMAR BATCH
317 W LODI AVE 1806 W KETTLEMAN LN STE H 1767 E HARNEY LN
LODI CA 95240 LODI CA 95242 LODI CA 95240
Illlllillllllllllllllllltlllllll
ROBERT BATCH
2615 PARK WEST DR
LODI CA 95242
IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
FRONTIERS
2375 W MARCH LN
STOCKTON CA 95207
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I t I I I I I II
DR CHRIS KESZLER
816 W LODI AVE
LODI CA 95240
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111
ANGELO PARISIS
9949 FERNWOOD RD
STOCKTON CA 95212
11111111111111111111111111111111
TOWNE RANCH ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 1597
LODI CA 95241
FNCBLNDSCPL8LS.00C
(1111111111111111111111111111111
BAUMBACH & PIAZZA
323 W ELM ST
LODI CA 95240
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
G -REM
PO BOX 1210
LODI CA 95241
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
ROBERT L LEE
HAWAII/SAN FRANCISCO
PO BOX 3116
SAN LEANDRO CA 94578
Illlilllllilllllllllilllllilllll
R THOMAS DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 1598
LODI CA 95241
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
DAVE WILLIAMS
1110 W KETTLEMAN LN STE 47
LODI CA 95242
I I I I I I I I I I I 111111111111111 111111
DILLON & MURPHY
1820 W KETTLEMAN LN
LODI CA 95242
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
GIANNONI DEVELOPMENT
1500 W EL CAMINO AVE #192
SACRAMENTO CA 95833
11111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
LEWIS HOMES
PO BOX 276125
SACRAMENTO CA 95827
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
TOKAY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 1257
WOODBRIDGE CA 95258
•, CITY OF LODI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Carnegie Forum Date: Wednesday, September 15,1999
305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 15,1999 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum,
305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter.
a) Consider a Resolution to Establish a Policy and Fee for Fence and Landscape Maintenance in New
Developments.
All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements
may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may
be made at said hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Clerk, P.O. Box 3006, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Dated: September 1, 1999
Approved as to form:
ke� "-f
Randall A. Ha Ys�
City Attorney
JACr YCLRKIFORMSWOTGEN.DOC 8131/99