HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 MAD 86-1 LevyAssessCITY CLERK FILE # 360-20
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 7, 2001
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Landscaping and Lighting District No. 86-1 (Villages
at Willow Creek)
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)
2)
3)
RECOMMENDATION: 1)
2)
3)
~ 4)
5)
Resolution approving engineer's report, confirming diagram
and assessment, and ordering levy of assessment at proposed
new rate (total of $85,111.96)
Resolution approving engineer's report, confirming diagram
and assessment, and ordering levy of assessment at 2000-01
rate. (total of $55,195.00)
Engineer's Report
Open public hearing
Receive Staff report and public comment
Question Staff and the public
Close public hearing and continue item until ballots have
been tabulated
Once tabulation of ballots has been completed, City Clerk will
announce the results:
b)
If ballot results are 51% or more for "yes," adopt
resolution (1) approving engineer's report,, confirming
diagram and assessment, and ordering levy of
assessment at the proposed new rate.
If ballot results are 51% or more for "no," adopt
resolution (2) approving engineer's report, confirming
diagram and assessment, and ordering levy of
assessment at the 2000-01 rate and provide direction
by choosing one of the following options:
1. Reduce level of service to match the anticipated
revenue.
2. Continue maintenance at the budgeted level of
service, using reserve funds to make up the
difference.
3. Cut back level of service to some designated
percentage, and match level of service with a
portion of reserve.
Staffwould propose to return to the 2000-01
level of service through the voting process again
next year.
g:\assessdist\86-1 \agsthrng
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
2001-2002 Sources and Use of Landscape Maintenance District Funds
(Based on Passage of Proposed Assessment)
Revenues:
Total Proposed Assessments Levied:
Estimated Interest on Reserves:
Estimated Prior Year Collections and Penalties
Less Estimated Collection Cost and Delinquency
Net Total Revenues:
$85,111.96
$ 2,086.00
$ 329.00
$(2,298.00)
$85,228.96
Expenditures:
Contract Landscape Maintenance:
Utilities:
Administration and Engineering Reports:
Total Operating Expenses:
$52,13L O0
$29,910.00
$ 3,279.00
$85,32O. OO
As shown above, $85,11L96 is proposed to be assessed to property owners for the 2001-02 street
landscaping maintenance costs. The amount proposed to be assessed to property, owners ($130.64 per
single fami .ly home and $65.32 per multi-family dwelling) represents a 54% increase over the
assessment amount levied during 2000-01.
DESCRIPTION: This maintenance assessment district was formed in 1986 as part of
the review and approval of the Villages at Willow Creek development. This assessment district funds the
maintenance of landscaping, including fencing and soundwalls, along the west side of Do ugherty Road
from Amador Valley Boulevard to the northerly City Limit, along Amador Valley Boulevard from
Dougherty Road to Wildwood Road, along Wildwood Road and Fall Creek Road, and certain landscaped
areas within the Ridgecreek single-family home development. Landscaping within the condominium and
apartment developments is the responsibility of the property owner or homeowners' association for those
individual developments. The landscaping along and within the Alamo Creek channel area is not included
in the assessment district as it is the responsibility of Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7.
Proposed Increase in Assessment
At the City Council meeting of June 19, 2001, the City Council approved the Preliminary Engineer's
Report (Attachment 3) for Fiscal Year 2001-02, which includes a proposed rate increase. The proposed
rate is $130.64 per single-family home and $65.32 per multi-family dwelling unit. This is an increase of
54% over the prior year's assessment.
The Engineer's Report also includes an escalation clause that would allow increases in future years based
on the Consumer Price Index rate of increase and actual increases in utility costs. Similar clauses were
included in two of the newer Districts, the Santa Rita Landscape Maintenance District and the Dublin
Ranch Street Light Maintenance District.
When this assessment district was originally formed in 1986, the assessment was set at $120 per single
family lot and $60 per multi-family lot based on an engineering estimate of maintenance cost for planned
Page 2
landscaping improvements. A substantial reserve built up over the next several years, as some of the
anticipated improvements were not accepted for maintenance. Under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, the allowable reserve for an assessment district is about half the annual maintenance cost, and in
1991-92, the assessment was reduced to $78.48 per single family lot and $39.24 per multi-family lot in
order to utilize some of the reserve. Slight increases occurred in 1992-93 and 1993-94, but the assessment
has not been increased above $84.72 per single family lot and $42.36 per multi-family lot since that time.
The total assessment mount since 1993-94 has been $55,195. The estimated cost of maintenance for
1993-94 was $69,620 and has increased about 19% over seven years to the 2001-02 estimate of $82,820.
Without an increase in.assessment, the cash balance for this District would be expected to drop to $13,000
or less by the end of 2001-02. In the past, reserves have been used to defray the cost of unexpected
expenses such as major irrigation repairs or plant replacements following a drought or freeze. Staff is
concerned that, should such an event occur, there would be insufficient funds to effect a repair. If the
assessment is not raised at this time, the Assessment District will experience a significant deficit in Fiscal
Year 2002-2003, which will increase in subsequent years. This will result in a significant reduction in the
levels of maintenance in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and beyond.
Notification and Informational Meetings
To comply with Proposition 218, notices and ballots were mailed to property owners on June 22, 2001,
which is 46 days prior to the scheduled public hearing on August 7th. Along with the required notice,
Staff also included a newsletter which explained the history of the District and the need for an increase in
more detail and invited property owners to an informational meeting on July 9t~' No property owners
attended the July 9th meeting. At the first public hearing, which was held on July 17th, a property owner
indicated dissatisfaction with the maintenance activities, questioned the cost of the activities taking place,
and also felt that the notice given for the informational meeting was inadequate. The City Council directed
Staffto provide a response to the questions and schedule another informational meeting.
The second informational meeting was held on Monday, July 30th. Thirteen property owners, representing
ten property addresses out of the 1,150 housing units in the development, attended the meeting. The
questions raised and subjects discussed at the informational meeting were as follows:
Condition of landscaping: The property owners are concerned that the existing landscaping is deficient.
There are bare spots where ground cover and shrubs have died and not been replaced, and some of the
plants have gotten older and woody or have a disease called "scale.'
Staff explained that since funds in the assessment district are limited, some activities do not take place with
the same frequency that might occur in other areas which are funded differently. Some of the landscape
plants from the original subdivision installation are not compatible from a water need standpoint, and some
are at the end of their life span and need to be replaced. Staff proposed that some priorities be established
for replacement and presented some potential designs for high visibility areas. However, other
maintenance activities would have to be cut back in order to fund the proposed new planting.
Accountability of Maintenance Contractor: Some property oWners expressed concern that the
maintenance contract is not competitively bid and that there does not appear to be a written specification
with respect to appearance of landscaping or frequency of activities.
Page 3
Staff explained that the City contracts with MCE Corporation for street, park, and building maintenance
activities, not just landscape maintenance. A percentage of the landscape activities are competitively bid by
MCE Corporation; these are items that can be measure'd and specified such as mowing, fertilization, and
weed control. MCE's performance is reviewed by City Staff, and the frequencies for maintenance
activities are established during the budget process. MCE issues a report with each monthly invoice that
includes all of the activities, by number of hours and dollars, that have occurred during that month. It was
again emphasized that the limited budget in the assessment district affects some of the frequencies.
Size of Proposed Increase: Some property owners questioned why the rate was not increased gradually
over several years rather than all at once.
Staff explained that under the regulations established by Proposition 218, it is difficult to raise an
assessment, and the process is lengthy and somewhat expensive. In addition, until recently the reserve has
exceeded the amount allowed by law and needed to be reduced.
Community_ Involvement: Some of the property owners expressed an interest in working with Staff to
prioritize areas and generate ideas for improvement.
The property owners will meet and come to a consensus as to priorities and ideas for improvement and let
Staff know. Staffis willing to meet with the property owners periodically to discuss needs and desires and
will d° so also as part of the budget process for next year. The southwest comer of Dougherty Road and
Willow Creek is a part °fthe park frontage and will be relandscaped as part of the park maintenance
budget.
Ballot Procedure
Proposition 218 requires that the ballots received from property owners be opened and tabulated at the
City Council meeting, and that the results be made available in written form. A total of about 180 ballots
had been received at the time this report was written. In order to avoid delaying the meeting, Staff
recommends that the public hearing be conducted early in the agenda. The procedure would be as outlined
in the "Recommendation" above:
Open public heating
Receive Staff presentation and public comment
Question Staff and the public
Close public hearing and continue the decision until the ballots have been tabulated
Ballots can be submitted any time until the close of the public hearing. Anyone wishing to change his or
her vote must do so prior to the close of the public hearing. Staff will have replacement ballots available at
the meeting.
It is proposed that Staffmembers would take the ballots into the Regional Meeting Room for tabulation so
that the meeting can continue without disruption. Any members of the public interested in obs, erving
tabulation of ballots may do so. Each vote is weighted according to the amount of the assessment; in other
words, the votes from single-family property owners would have a value of $130.64, the votes from multi-
family property owners would have a value of $65.32, and the vote from the commercial comer property
would have a value of $522.56. There are four apartment complexes in the development which would
have a value of $65.32 times the number of units in the complex.
Page 4
After the ballots are tabulated, the CityClerk will announce the results. At that time, the City Council may
adopt the appropriate resolution as indicated in the Recommendation. If 51% or more of the ballots
received (based on relative values) are "yes," the City Council should adopt Resolution Attachment 1
approving the levy of assessment at the proposed new rates. If 51% or more of the ballots received (based
on relative values) are "no," the City Council should adopt Resolution Attachment 2 which approves the
levy of assessments at the 2000-01 rates.
If the majority vote is "no," the maintenance activities in the District would be curtailed to fit within funds
available.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and table the item until ballots can be
tabulated and the results announced. Based on the result of the vote, the City Council should adopt
EITHER Resolution Attachment 1 approving the levy of assessment with increase OR Resolution
Attachment 2 approving the levy of assessment at the 2000-01 rate. If the decision of the voters is to deny
the increase, Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding level of service as noted in the
Recommendation~
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. - 2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF AN ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEEDING AND
APPROVING CERTAIN ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin called and duly held an assessment ballot
proceeding for Landscape and Lighting District No. 86-1 (hereafter referred to as the "District"), pursuant
to Resolution No. 99-01 for the purpose of Presenting to the qualified property owners within the District a
proposition for the increase in the assessments and an assessment range formula to allow for reasonable
increases; and,
WHEREAS, The landowners of record within the District as of the close of the Public Hearing held
on August.7, 2001 consented to the increase in the assessments and the assessment range formula to allow
for reasonable increases;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR THE DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 The above recitals are tree and correct.
Section 2 The canvass of the votes cast in the District at the assessment ballot proceeding held in the District
on August 7, 2001, is hereby apprOved and confirmed.
Section 3 The proposition, presemed to qualified property owners of the District for receipt by the City
Clerk on August 7, 2001, each has received a vote, weighted according to the proportional financial
obligation of the affected property. Of the qualified property owners voting at said assessment ballot
proceeding, the proposition has carried. The City Council is hereby authorized to take the necessary steps
to levy the assessment as authorized by the proposition.
Section 4 The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Resolution on the minutes of the City Council,
which shall constitute the official declaration of the result of such assessment ballot proceeding.
Section 5 This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 6 The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution~
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
g: lassessdist186-1 lreso increase pass
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. - 2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DECLARING THE RESULTS OF AN ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEEDING AND
APPROVING CERTAIN ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin called and duly held an assessment ballot
proceeding for Landscape and Lighting District No. 86-1 (hereafter referred to as the "District"), pursuant
to Resolution No. 99-01 for the purpose of presenting to the qualified property owners within the District a
proposition for the increase in the assessments and an assessment range formula to allow for reasonable
increases; and,
WHEREAS, The landowners of record within the District as of the close of the Public Hearing held
on August 7, 2001 denied the increase in the assessments and the assessment range formula to allow for
reasonable increases; and,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR THE DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2 The canvass of the votes cast in the District at the assessment ballot proceeding held in the District
on August 7, 2001, is hereby denied. '
Section 3 The proposition, presented to qualified property owners of the District for receipt by the City
Clerk on August 7, 2001, each has received a vote, weighted according to the proportional financial
obligation of the affected property. Of the qualified property owners voting at said assessment ballot
proceeding, the proposition has failed. The City Council is hereby authorized to take the necessary steps to
approve the Engineer's Report, as amended, to reflect the results of said ballot proceeding, and lower the
assessment amount to the allowable rate of said District.
Section 4 The City Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Resolution on the minutes of the City Council,
which shall constitute the official declaration of the result of such assessment ballot proceeding.
Section 5 This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
Section 6 The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Mayor
city Clerk
g: ~assessdist186- I lreso increase fail
CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1986-1
(TRACT 5511)
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
ENGINEER'S REPORT
CONTENTS
Assessment: Including Scope of Work, Estimate of Costs, Assessment Roll, and
Method of Apportioning.
Assessment Diagram
ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Dublin, California,
pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, adopted its Resolution Directing
Preparation of Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment District 1986-1 for the maintenance of
improvements more particularly therein described; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution directed the undersigned to prepare and file a report
pursuant to Section 22565, et. seq., of said Act;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under said
Act and the order of the Council of said City, hereby make the following assessment to cover the portion
of the estimated cost of the maintenance of said improvements and the cost and expenses incidental
thereto, to be paid by said District.
ESTIMATE OF COSTS
(1) (2) (3)
As Preliminarily As Finally
As Filed Approved Approved
Cost of Maintenance $82,041. O0 $82,041. O0
Capital Improvement Project $0.00 $0.00
Incidental Expenses , $46,692.96 $46,692.96
TOTAL COST $128,733.96 $128,733.96
Estimated 2001-02 Interest Income Applied
to 2001-02 Operating Costs ($2, 086. 00) ($2, 086. 00)
Prior Year Collections & Penalties ($329. 00) ($329. 00)
Estimated S ,urplus fi~om 2000-01 Fiscal Year ($41,207.00) ($41,207.00)
NET TO BE ASSESSED FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2001-2002 $85,11L 96 $85,11L 96
As required by said Act, a diagram is hereto attached showing the exterior boundaries of
said landscaping maintenance assessment district and also the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of
land within said landscaping maintenance assessment district as the same existed at the time of the
passage of said resolution, each of which lots or parcels having been given a separate number upon said
diagrarm
2
I do hereby assess the net amount to be assessed upon all assessable lots or parcels of land
within said landscaping maintenance assessment district by apportioning that amount among the several
lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the
maintenance of said improvements, and more particularly set forth in the list hereto attached and by
reference made a part hereof.
Said assessment is made upon the several lots or parcels of land within said landscaping
maintenance assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by said lots or
parcels respectively from the maintenance of said improvements. The diagram and assessment numbers
appearing herein are the diagram numbers appearing on said diagram, to which reference is hereby made
for a more particular description of said property.
Each lot or parcel of land assessed is described in the assessment list by reference to its
parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 2001/02
and includes all of such parcels excepting those portions thereof within existing public roads or rights of
way to be acquired in these proceedings for public road purposes. For a more particular description of
said property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder of said County.
3
SCOPE OF WORK
The following areas are to be maintained by this Maintenance Assessment District:
I)
The median and roadside landscaping along the north side of the street for the entire length of
Willow Creek Drive.
2)
Roadside landscaping along Shady Creek Drive within Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 37, 38, and
south of Lot 145, all within Tract 5511.
3)
Roadside landscaping, wall fence, and pathway improvements along the west side of Dougherty
Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and the northerly City Limit line, and along the north
side of Amador Valley Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road.
4) Roadside landscaping, fence, and pathway improvements along the west side of Wildwood Road.
5)¸
Roadside landscaping, fence, wall, and pathway improvemems along the west side of Dougherty
Road and the south side of Amador Valley Boulevard adjacent to Lot 150.
6)
Roadside landscaping, fence, and pathway improvements along the west and north sides of Fall
Creek Road.
7)
Roadside landscaping and emergency access surfacing at the north end of Crossridge Road within
the street right-of-way.
ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
The estimated cost for the maintenance of improvements described in this Report for Fiscal Year 2001-02
is as follows:
Maintenance
(1) Weeding, fertilizing, pruning, plant
replacement, irrigation system:
(2) Utilities:
$52,131.00
$29,910.00
Incidentals
(1) Administration
(2) Engineer's Report and Proceedings
(3) Cost of County Collection (1.7%)
(4) Delinquencies (1%)
(5) Comingencies/Reserve
$134.00
$&145.00
$1,44690
$851.12
$41,115.94
$82,041.00
$46,692.96
TOTAL:
$12&733.96
ASSESSMENT ROLL
Amount of Assessment for
Assessment and Lot Number Property Owners Lots/Units 2001-2002 Tax Year
Per Unit Total
Lots 1 - 145 (Village VI) Individual Owners 145 lots $130.64 $18,942.80
Lot 150 (Village I) Unknown 56 units $65.32 $3,657.92
Lot 151 (Commercial Comer) Unknown 4 units $130.64 $522.56
Lot 149 (Village II) Individual Owners 248 units $65.32 $16,199.36
Lot 148 (Village III) Individual Owners 224 units $65.32 $14,631.68
Lot 146A (Village IV) Individual Owners 135 units $65.32 $8,818.20
Lot 146B (Village V) Unknown 204 units $65.32 $13,325.28
Lots 152-177 (Village VII) Individual Owners 138 units $65.32 $9,014.16
$85,111..96
The annual maintenance cost shall be increased annually beginning July 1, 2002, by the percentage increase in the
Bay Area Urban Wage Earner Consumer Price Index ("Index") (applies to all costs except utilities), plus any actual
increase in the cost of utilities (power and water). If the Bay Area Urban Wage Earner Consumer Price Index is
unavailable or deemed by the City Council to be inappropriate, a comparable consumer price index, as approved by
the City Council, shall be used to replace the Bay Area Urban Wage Earner Price Index. SAMPLE
CALCULATION:
Assume an increase in the index of 1% and a utility increase of 5%.
MAINTENANCE COST
LESS UTILITY COST (SUBJECT TO RATE INCREASE ONLY)
$85,320
$(29,910)
ASSESSMENT SUBJECT TO INDEX INCREASE
$55,410
INDEX INCREASE (ASSUMED 1%) 55,410 x .01 = 554
$554
ENERGY COST
5% UTILITY RATE INCREASE2K910X.05=l,4~
$29,910
$1,495
NEW TOTAL MAINTENANCE COST
$87,369
METHOD OF APPORTIONING
Each single family lot shall be assigned a benefit unit of one (1), each multifamily unit assigned a benefit
unit of one-half (1/2), the commercial lot shall have a benefit unit of four (4), and the open space lots
shall have a benefit unit of zero. This gives the following benefit units and apportionments for each
Village for this Fiscal year:
Number of Benefit % of Total
Living Units Units Assessment
Lot 150 Village I 56 28 4.30
Lot 149 Village II 248 124 19.03
Lot 148 Village III 224 112 17.19
Lot 146A Village IV 135 67.5 10.36
Lot 146B Village V 204 102 15.66
Lot 1-145 Village VI 145 145 22.26
Lots i52-177 Village VII 138 69 10.59
Lot 151 Commercial 0 4 0.61
Lots A - D Open Space 0 0 0.00
, Total: 1,150 651.5 100.00
7
CITY OF DUBLIN
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-1
CERTIFICATIONS
FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
I, the City Clerk of the City of Dublin, California, hereby certify that the foregoing Engineer's Report,
including Assessment, in the mounts set forth in Column (1), with the diagram thereto attached, was
filed with me on June 19, 2001.
I, the City Clerk of the City of Dublin, California, hereby certify t~ the foregoing Assessment, with the
diagram thereto attached, was preliminarily approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City by
its Resolution No. 99-01 duly adopted by said Council on June 19, 2001.
I, the City Clerk of the City of Dublin, California, hereby certify ~ the foregoing Assessment, with the
diagram thereto attached, was finally approved and confirmed by the City Council of said City by its
Resolution No. -01, duly adopted by said Council on August 7, 2001.
I, the City Clerk of the City of Dublin, California, hereby certify that a certified copy of the Assessment
and diagram was filed in the office of the County Auditor of the County of Alameda, California, on
August 10, 2001.
146 B
Dod~HERTY RoAD
LOT
LOT ~'
DETAIl. A -
'" SIll:ET 2
14~ A
N
SEE .DETAI~. J~::.
'SHEET-2'~' 3'
LOT 'G'
LOT ~'
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
WATER CONSERVATION D/STRICT
,PA~CEL " C 'SERIES NO 84-07G954
ASSESSMENT' DIAGRAM
.Street Lighting Maintenance
AsseSsment Distriot
CITY OF DUBLIN
ALAIVllEDA cOUNTY~ CALIFORNIA
/
OETAIL~ B
RD.
2701
,Street' Ughting. M~in~,en~ne~:
/