Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4872_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 4872 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands that: WHEREAS, on the 21st day of January, 1992 , said City Council did adopt its Resolution No. 4838 directing the Engineer of Work to make and file with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 ; and WHEREAS, said Engineer of Work has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for in said Resolution and under and pursuant to said Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that no part of said report requires or should be modified in any respect; NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of the itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby, preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2 . That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivision of land within said Assessment District as the same existed at the time of passage of said Resolution is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 3 . That the proposed assessment upon the subdivision of land in said Assessment District , in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4 . That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings, and pursuant to the proposed district. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1992 . r , ATTEST: CITY C � ENGINEERS REPORT AND RESOLUTIONS FOR THE 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR CITY OF REDLANDS LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ADDENDUM NO. 1 C} C G ENGINEERING MAY 1992 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO CITY OF REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 1992-93 FISCAL YEAR Addendum No. 1 to the 1992-93 Engineer's Report for the City of Redlands Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 is prepared as directed by the Redlands City Council at their May 19 , 1992 meeting. The City Council was concerned regarding the levying of assessments for administrative and engineering costs on properties which had not had the on-site development completed. The Council directed the Engineer of Work to reevaluate properties and amend the engineer's report as necessary. All properties either initially formed or subsequently annexed into the district were reviewed by both the Engineer of Work and the Community Development Department staff to determine the extent of on-site development. Assessments were modified or deleted as were appropriate. In reevaluating how the general administration and engineering costs should be spread over the properties in the district, the Engineer of Work determined that properties having landscaping maintained by the district would utilize approximately 85% of the engineering report preparation time . This was the basis for recalculating the engineering portion of the incidental expense. These costs were then spread to properties which have landscaping maintained by the district on an equal cost per annexation. The remaining 150 of the cost of the engineer's report was spread to properties having on-site development , but no landscaping maintained by the district, on an equal assessment per lot. Based upon the foregoing, the Engineer of Work has revised Section 5 (Estimated Maintenance Costs) and Section 7 (Assessment) of the Engineer's Report dated May, 1992 . Addendum No. 1 will replace Sections 5 and Section 7 in said report. - 1 - SECTION S. Estimated Maintenance Costs It is anticipated that the City will contract for maintenance services on the landscaping improvements . The City ' s record- keeping will be required to be sufficiently accurate to detail the expenses so that these costs may be recaptured through assessments.. Due to the restrictions placed upon municipal budgets through the passage of Jarvis-Gann and the lag between the time assessments are made and revenues are collected by the City, it is appropriate that assessments be made in advance of the anticipated expenditures to provide working capital for the maintenance effort. This method will be used for all developments which have had final tract maps filed or as directed by the City Staff. In this case it is reasonable to expect these landscaping improvements to be completed within the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Developments not likely to have landscaping improvements completed during the 1992-93 fiscal year, specifically those not having final tract maps or other development plans filed at this time, should not have assessments levied on them for maintenance. There is however, one exception . Since the district does need to levy assessments to recapture a portion of the costs involved in the preparation of the annual report , there will therefore be an assessment levied on Annexations No. 4 , 5, 6 and 7 for the annual report. In evaluating how the general administration and engineering cost should be spread over the properties in the district, the Engineer of Work determined that properties having landscaping maintained by the district would utilize approximately 85% of the engineering report preparation time. This was the basis for calculating the engineering portion of the incidental expenses . These costs were then spread to properties which have landscaping maintained by the district on an equal cost per annexation. The remaining 150 of the cost of the engineer' s report was spread to properties having on-site development, but no landscaping maintained by the district, on an equal assessment per lot. General administration will be spread equally among the properties in the Original District and Annexations 1, 2 and 3 which have both on-site development complete, and landscaping maintained by the District. Developments that had assessments levied previously but which have not yet had landscaping improvements installed should not be assessed this fiscal year providing their fund balance is sufficient. The estimated June 30, 1992 , fund balance was provided by the City Finance Department. _ 2 - The following assessments include costs or balances accumulated to date , and estimated costs for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year for the landscaping to be maintained by Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 - Tracts 13282 , 13434 and 13496 (Original District Formation) Tract 13282 (38 lots) (City Designation: Original District 1-A) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $1 , 538 Water & Electric = 615 Field Inspections - 811 $ 2 , 964 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1930 Engineering - 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $ 5, 623 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 8, 141 1992-93 Assessment $2 , 000 Tract 13434 (78 lots) (City Designation: Original District 1-B) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $2 , 210 Water & Electric - 880 Field Inspections = 811 $ 3 , 901 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1 , 930 Engineering = 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $ 6 , 560 Estimated June 30 , 1992 Fund Balance 10 , 555 1992-93 Assessment $ 3 , 000 3 - Tract 13496 (9 lots) (City Designation: Original District 1-C) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $ 9, 561 water & Electric = 3 , 000 Field Inspections = 811 $13 , 372 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1, 930 Engineering 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $16, 031 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 15, 197 1992-93 Assessment $11, 000 Annexation No. 1 - Tract 13745 (38 lots) (city Designation: Annexation 1-A) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $2 , 531 Water & Electric - 1, 100 Field Inspections = 811 $ 4 , 442 Incidental Expenses General Administration - 1, 930 Engineering = 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $ 7 , 101 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 7 , 593 1992-93 Assessment $ 7 , 000 - 4 - Annexation No. 1 - Tract 13765 (25 lots) (City Designation: Annexation 1-B) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $1, 552 Water & Electric - 550 Field Inspections = 811 $ 2 , 913 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1, 930 Engineering = 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Casts $ 5 , 572 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 4 , 714 1992-93 Assessment $ 5, 700 Annexation No. 2 - Tract 13947 (35 lots) (City Designation: Annexation 2-A) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $5, 942 Water & Electric = 2 , 370 Field Inspections - 811 $ 9 , 123 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1, 930 Engineering - 729 $2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $11 , 782 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 5, 544 1992-93 Assessment $12 , 000 - 5 - Annexation No. 3 - Parcel Map 11917 (5 lots) (city Designation: Annexation 3-A) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Maintenance Contract Maintenance = $11, 592 Water & Electric = 2 , 400 Field Inspections = 811 $14 , 803 Incidental Expenses General Administration = 1, 930 Engineering - 729 2 , 659 1992-93 Estimated Costs $17 , 462 Estimated June 30, 1992 Fund Balance 14 , 006 1992-93 Assessment $17 , 500 Annexation No. 4-B MS 178 (9 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 55 1992-93 Assessment $ 55 Annexation No. 4-D - MS 184 (3 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 18 1992-93 Assessment $ 18 Annexation No. 4-E - CUP 382 (2 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 12 1992-93 Assessment $ 12 6 Annexation No. 4-F - CRA 505 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-G - CRA 485 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-H - CUP 253 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-I - CRA 508 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-J - CUP 519 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-R - CUP 515 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 7 Annexation No. 4-L - CUP 518 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No, 4-M - CUP 522 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-N - CUP 521 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-0 - CRA 605 (3 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 18 1992-93 Assessment $ 18 Annexation No. 4-P - Parcel Mag 12487 (3 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 18 1992-93 Assessment $ 18 Annexation No. 4-R - CUP 278 (3 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 18 1992-93 Assessment $ 18 8 Annexation No. 4-S - CUP 405 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-T - CRA 354 (2 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 12 1992-93 Assessment $ 12 Annexation Na. 4-U - CRA 346 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Fiscal Year $ 6 Annexation No. 4-V - CRA 607 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 4-W - Tract 14261 (20 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 123 1992-93 Assessment $ 123 Annexation No. 4-X - Parcel Map 12022 (10 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 62 1992-93 Assessment $ 62 - 9 - Annexation No. 5-A - MS 188 (4 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 25 1992-93 Assessment $ 25 Annexation No. 5-B - MS 178 (5 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 31 1992-93 Assessment $ 31 Annexation No. 5-C - Tract 14556 (10 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 62 1992-93 Assessment $ 62 Annexation No. 5-E - MS 196 (5 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 31 1992-93 Assessment $ 31 Annexation No. 5-G - CRA 615 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 5 H - CRA 536 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 - 10 - Annexation No. 6-A - CRA 517 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 6-B - CRA 62€3 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 6-C - CRA 624 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 6-D - CRA 305 (2 lets) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 12 1992-93 Assessment $ 12 Annexation No. 6-E - Tract 13575 (27 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 166 1992-93 Assessment $ 166 Annexation No. 6-F - CUP 550 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 - ll - Annexation No. 5-G - CRA 623 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 6-H - CUP 542 (9 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 55 1992-93 Assessment $ 55 Annexation No. 6-J - M/S 201 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 7-B - M/S 212 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 7-C - CUP 559 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 7-E - CRA 546 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 - 12 - Annexation No. 7-F - CRA 641 (2 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering - $ 12 1992-93 Assessment $ 12 Annexation No. 7-G - CRA 640 (3 lots) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ is 1992-93 Assessment $ 1s Annexation No. 7-H CUP 562 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 Annexation No. 7-I - CUP 548 (1 lot) 1992-93 Fiscal Year Engineering = $ 6 1992-93 Assessment $ 6 SECTION 7 . Assessment The City Council, in forming Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and in annexing territories to the district, has maintained the philosophy that the subdivider or developer is responsible for the plantings , irrigation system and the maintenance of the improvements until they become well established. The assessments for maintenance thus only include anticipated costs incurred subsequent to the acceptance of the system by the City Council on behalf of the Maintenance District. - 13 - The maintenance of the landscaping is vital for the protection of both economic and humanistic values of the development. The City council has heretofore determined that for the preservation of values incorporated within developments adjacent to landscaped areas, the landscaped areas should be included in a maintenance district to ensure satisfactory levels of maintenance. The establishment of the assessment for each development must be on a unit by unit basis which will preserve the integrity of each project. There should be a review of each annexation to determine the effect upon the other units that have been developed. These possible effects will have to be considered when determining the annual assessments. The determination of benefit for the lots within the district takes into consideration the following facts for the original district and all annexations thereto: original District Tracts 13282, 13434 and 13496 1 . The purpose of landscaping is to provide an aesthetic impression on the area. 2 . The maintained landscaping benefits all properties in the development. 3 . The benefit to the lots not adjacent to the landscaped areas benefit by the uniform maintenance and appearance. All lots not abutting the landscaped areas benefit equally. 4 . The landscaping on the Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue boundaries of Tracts 13282 and 13434 respectively, is oriented away from the units adjacent to the landscaped areas, however these properties were given a 10 percent surcharge to recognize proximity and support benefit. 5 . The landscaping in the common area along the Allesandro Road frontage of Tract 13496 is oriented towards all the units. Two of the lots abut the landscaped areas and were given a 20 percent surcharge to recognize proximity and support benefit. 6 . The lots to receive surcharge shall be considered to be within Assessment Zone "A" . - 14 - Formula for Assessment A = Assessment per interior lot L = Number of lots not adjacent to landscaping areas on the Wabash Avenue frontage of Tract 13282 , the San Bernardino Avenue frontage of Tract 13434 and the Allesandro Road frontage of Tract 13496. P = Number of lots with 10 percent or 20 percent surcharge LA + P [ {1. 10} or (1, 20) ] A = Amount to be assessed The 1992--93 assessment will be spread based upon the preceding formula . Tract 13262 Total lot count in Tract 13282 is 38 lots, with 8 of these lots being adjacent to Wabash Avenue. 1992-93 Assessment (30A) + 8 (1. 10A) _ $ 2 , 000 A = $ 51. 55 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on Wabash Avenue = $51. 55. Amount of assessments for lots adjacent to Wabash Avenue with 10 percent surcharge = $56 . 70 . Tract 13434 Total lot count in Tract 13434 is 78 lots, with 4 of these lots being adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue. 1992-93 Assessment (74A) + 4 (1 . 10A) _ $ 3 , 000 A = $ 38. 27 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on San Bernardino Avenue = $38 . 27 . Amount of assessments for lots adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue with 10 percent surcharge = $42 . 09 . - 15 - Tract 13496 Total lot count in Tract 13496 is 9 lots, with 2 of these lots being adjacent to Allesandro Road. 1992-93 Assessment (7A) + 2 (1. 2A) = $11, 000 A = $1, 170. 21 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on Allesandro Road = $1, 170. 21. Amount of assessments for lots adjacent to Allesandro Road with 20 percent surcharge = $1, 404 . 26. Annexation No. 1 - Tract 13745 1 . The purpose of landscaping is to provide an aesthetic impression on the area. 2 . The maintained landscaping benefits all properties in the development. 3 . The benefit to the lots not adjacent to the landscaped areas benefit by the uniform maintenance and appearance. All lots not abutting the landscaped areas benefit equally. 4 . The landscaping on San Bernardino Avenue is oriented away from the lots adjacent to the landscaped areas, however these properties were given a 10 percent surcharge to recognize proximity and support benefit. These lots are within Assessment Zone "A" as shown on the Assessment Diagram. Formula for Assessment A = Assessment per interior lot L = Number of lots not adjacent to landscaping areas on San Bernardino Avenue P = Number of lots with 10 percent surcharge within Assessment Zone "A" LA + P ( 1. 10) A = Amount to be assessed - 16 The 1992-93 assessment will be spread based upon the preceding for- mula . Total lot count in the tract is 38 lots, with 9 of these lots being adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue. 1992-93 Assessment (29A) + 9 (1 . 10A) _ $ 7 , 000 A = $179 . 95 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on the San Bernardino Avenue = $179 . 95 . Amount of assessments for lots within Assessment Zone "All adjacent to the San Bernardino Avenue landscaping areas with 10 percent surcharge = $197 . 94 . 1992--93 Assessments Tract Numbers 13745 Lots 16 through 24 = $197 . 94 each All remaining lots = $179 . 95 each Annexation No. 1 - Tract 13765 1. The purpose of landscaping is to provide an aesthetic impression on the area. 2 . The maintained landscaping benefits all properties in the development. 3 . The benefit to the lots not adjacent to the landscaped areas benefit by the uniform maintenance and appearance. All lots not abutting the landscaped areas benefit equally. 4 . The landscaping on San Bernardino Avenue is oriented away from the lots adjacent to the landscaped areas, however these properties were given a 10 percent surcharge to recognize proximity and support benefit. These lots are within Assessment Zone "Ar" as shown on the Assessment Diagram. - 17 - Formula for Assessment A = Assessment per interior lot L = Number of lots not adjacent to landscaping areas on San Bernardino Avenue P = Number of lots with 10 percent surcharge within Assessment Zone "A" LA + P (1. 10) A = Amount to be assessed The 1992-93 assessment will be spread based upon the preceding for- mula. Total lot count in the tract is 25 lots, with 2 of these lots being adjacent to San Bernardino Avenue. 1992-93 Assessment (23A) + 2 (1. 10A) = $ 5, 700 A = $226 . 19 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on the San Bernardino Avenue = $226 . 19. Amount of assessments for lots within Assessment Zone "A" adjacent to the San Bernardino Avenue landscaping areas with 10 percent surcharge = $248 . 81. 1992-93 Assessments Tract Numbers 13765 Lots 2 through 24 = $226 . 19 each All remaining lots = $248 . 81 each Annexation No. 2 - Tract 13947 1. The purpose of landscaping is to provide an aesthetic impression on the area . 2 . The maintained landscaping benefits all properties in the development. 3 . The benefit to the lots not adjacent to the landscaped areas benefit by the uniform maintenance and appearance. All lots not abutting the landscaped areas benefit equally. - 18 - 4 . The landscaping on Reservoir Road is oriented away from the lots adjacent to the landscaped areas, however these properties were given a 10 percent surcharge to recognize proximity and support benefit. These lots are within Assessment zone "A" as shown on the Assessment Diagram. Formula for Assessment A = Assessment per interior lot L = Number of lots not adjacent to landscaping areas on Reservoir Road P = Number of lots with 10 percent surcharge within Assessment Zone "A" LA + P (1. 10) A = Amount to be assessed The cost of planting and installing improvements is to be paid by the developer. For the benefit of the future owners the estimated 1992-93 assessment will be spread based upon the preceding formula. Total lot count in the district is 35 lots, with 4 of these lots being adjacent to Reservoir Road. 1992-93 Assessment (31A) + 4 (1 . 10A) = $12 , 000 A = $338 . 98 Amount of assessment for lots not adjacent to the landscaping areas on the Reservoir Road = $338 . 98 . Amount of assessments for lots within Assessment Zone "A" adjacent to the Reservoir Road landscaping areas with 10 percent surcharge = $372 . 88 . 1992-93 Assessments Tract Number 13947 Lots 8 , 26, 27 and 35 = $372 .88 each All remaining lots = $338 .98 each - 19 - Annexation No. 3 - Parcel Map 11917 Formula for Assessment T = Total length of perimeter landscaping = 3 , 099' L = Individual lot length of perimeter landscaping A = Amount to be assessed = $17, 500 The 1992-93 assessment will be spread based upon the preceding formula. Total lot count in the district is 4 lots. 1992-93 Assessment Assessment per lot: Parcel 2 = 1010' / 3099 ' x $17, 500 = $ 5, 703 . 45 Parcel 3 = 206' / 3099' x $17 , 500 = $ 1, 163 . 28 Parcel 4 = 324 ' / 3099' x $17 , 500 = $ 1, 829 . 62 Parcel 5 = 1559' / 3099' x $17 , 500 = $ 8, 803 . 65 Annexation No. 4, S, 5 and 7 No assessments are proposed to be levied on the parcels in these annexations except for the per lot share of the annual engineer's report. This assessment will be $6. 16 per lot in each of these annexations. Further, no assessment will be levied on any lot which has not had the on-site development completed. The City Council will hold a public hearing in June 1992 to determine the assessments based upon the costs for 1992--93 Fiscal Year which are anticipated to be incurred by the City and which are to be recovered through assessments as required by the Landscaping and Lighting District Act of 1972 . Submitted By: Noel L. Christensen R. C.E. 15398 Engineer of Work 031024.00i:0. 031024(300,12 sv)