Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1740)Town Council Meeting Regular Session October 5, 2022 Town Council Meeting Announcements Upcoming Meetings Meetings are subject to change. Check the Town website for meeting status. Water Utility Commission Regular Session October 10 at 5 p.m. Hopi Conference Room Budget and Finance Commission Regular Session October 18 at 4 p.m. Council Chambers Town Council Regular Session October 19 at 6 p.m. Council Chambers Town Council Meeting Regular Session October 5, 2022 Public Hearing: Proposed code amendment to align and clarify standards for a variety of permitted housing types October 5, 2022 Purpose Initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission Rise of “missing middle” housing market and types Clarify application of outdated and underutilized standards Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval 7 Housing in Oro Valley Detached Single Family Homes Duplex Triplex/ Fourplex Courtyard apartment Bungalow Court Townhouse Multiplex Live Work Mid-Rise R1: Single Family R-4: Townhome and R-4R: Resort R-S: Residential Service and R-6: Multifamily Purposes ranges from preserving rural SFR to medium-high density detached SFR residential R-4 is intended for relatively low- density development having individual ownership and built-in privacy, either in the form of party wall construction or enclosed courtyards. R-4R is intended primarily to provide for accommodations for seasonal visitors. R-S: •Administrative, clerical and professional offices of a residential scale and character •Medium density residential R-6: •Multi-family residential development, to accommodate an increased density of population •Business complexes on a residential scale 8 1. Defining housing types 2. Aligning existing parking and design standards 3. Clarifying recreation and open space standards 4. Applying R-6 perimeter setbacks with adjacent uses 5. Clarifying application of R-6 internal setbacks to single-family and attached units 9 Proposed Code Amendment No increase to the amount of land available for higher density housing Does not remove requirements applicable to higher density housing Ensure accurate application of existing zoning standards and improve transparency for all users by: 1. Define housing types –Eliminate overlap and confusion Current Proposed Multi-levelAttachedDetached Duplex, triplex, fourplex Patio homes and townhouses Casita, cottages and bungalows Custom and model homes Single-Family Dwelling Multi-family Apartments or condos Stacked duplexes, fourplexes or townhomes Live-workSingle-Family attached or semi-detached 10 11 1. Define housing types –Definitions include related industry terms A building designed for occupancy by 2 or more families living independently of each other in units attached side by side or front to back. This term includes duplexes, patio homes, townhomes, condos or other similar housing types. A building designed for occupancy by 2 or more families living independently of each other in units stacked on top of one another. This term includes apartments, condos and other similar housing types. A building designed for occupancy by 1 family. This term includes freestanding homes. Detached Attached Multi-Level Existing Requirements 1. Residential Subdivisions –1 unit per lot 2. Residential Complexes –Unsubdivided Detached units Attached units Mix of attached and detached units Mix of attached and detached units Attached units Multi-level units 4 spaces per unit Spaces per bedroom size plus 1 guest space per every 4 units Unclear Unclear Spaces per bedroom size plus 1 guest space per every 4 units Spaces per bedroom size plus 1 guest space per every 4 units Issue: Accurately applying existing parking requirements to “middle housing” projects 2. Align existing parking and design standards 12 13 2. Align existing parking and design standards Proposed Alignment 1.Residential Subdivisions –1 unit per lot 2. Residential Complexes –Unsubdivided Detached units Attached units Mix of attached and detached units Mix of attached and detached units Attached units Multi-level units Garages and driveways Shared Parking Areas Apply existing subdivision (single-family) parking requirements: 4 spaces per unit Apply existing residential complex (multi-family)standards: Spaces per bedroom size plus 1 guest space per every 4 units Proposed: Align existing standards based on housing development characteristics No changes to the parking requirements 14 2. Align existing parking and design standards Issue:Applicability of design standards overlap Chapter 3: Single-Family Residential –“All single- family attached and detached residential projects” Chapter 4: Muti-Family –“All multi-family attached and detached residential projects….including townhomes, apartments, condominiums and attached single-family residential development of 2 or more” Issue: Accurately applying existing design standards to developments with a mix of detached and attached units Proposed: Align Chapter 3 standards to detached and attached dwelling types and Chapter 4 standards to multi-level as intended No changes to design standards 15 3. Clarify rec/open space standards Residential Subdivision – 1 unit per lot Residential Complex – Unsubdivided Non-residential (R-6 and R-S) Development Type Detached Attached Mix of detached and attached Mix of detached and attached Attached Multi-level Office / Commercial Rec / Open Space Requirement Maintain/apply existing subdivision req. 1 acre per 85 units Maintain/apply existing R-4 (townhome) req: 10% of site Maintain existing R-6 req: 50% of 35% of site 25% of site Private Space Maintain/apply existing 250 sf. min. Apply existing: 20% floor area Maintain existing R-6 req: 10% -20% floor area Not applicable Issues: Different rec requirements for the same housing development based on zoning Open space amount for R-S or R-6 when developed with nonresidential uses unclear Proposed: Align existing rec and open space requirements based on development type 16 3. Clarify rec/open space standards Zone Existing Amenity Requirements R1 1 passive and 1 active per every ½ acre R-4 Intended to use R1 standards but not clearly defined by code R-4R R-S R-6 Indoor rec (50+ units) Tot -lot (20+units) Housing Type Proposed Detached 1 passive and 1 active per every ½ acre Attached Mix of units Multi-level 1 passive and 1 active per every ½ acre plus: •Indoor rec (50+ units) •Tot -lot (20+ units with 2 or more bedrooms) Issues: Amenity requirements unclear in some zoning districts Distribution unlimited except in R-6 “One-size” fits all approach to all permitted housing types in R-6 Proposed clarifications: Existing amenity requirements apply to all housing projects Restrict distribution to ensure meaningful rec spaces Intent of the tot-lot requirement in R-6 applies to multi-level Indoor rec requirement in R-6 applies only to multi-level Issue: Application of perimeter setbacks not based on adjacent uses Proposed: Based perimeter setbacks on adjacent uses Like other OV Multi-family PAD districts Creates a purposeful transition between uses Only change proposed is most applicable to single-story: Single-story required within 100 feet of a single-family zoning district Commission/Council may require single-story buildings within 50 feet of a R1-7 or multifamily zoning district 17 4. Apply R-6 perimeter setbacks with adjacent uses Existing Front –30 feet Side/Rear-20 feet Proposed From roads –30 feet From single-family –20 feet From non-residential/high density –10 feet Example of proposed change 18 5. Clarify application of R-6 internal setbacks Min 10’ Distance between two, two-story attached productsDistance between two, two-story multi-level buildings Min 20’ Issues: R-6 internal setbacks are not suitable for detached or attached housing units Internal setbacks are unclear in R-S zoning district (also permits detached, attached and multi-level units) Proposed clarification: Maintain existing separation requirements between multi-level products Allow 1-2 story detached and attached products to be 10 feet apart Mimic requirements in the R-S zoning district 19 General Plan Compliance Meets the following goals and policies: Goal D: A community with a wide range of services, amenities, shopping and dining opportunities and housing types that meet the needs of current and future residents. Goal X: Effective transitions between differing land uses and intensities in the community. CC.2: Provide appropriate park facilities and services for residents of all ages in the communities. CC.7: Support the development of diverse housing types within the community. LU.5: Provide diverse land uses that meet the Town's overall needs and effectively transition in scale and density to adjacent neighborhoods. CC.19: Provide ongoing and easy access to Town information and resources. Summary and Recommendation Issues with existing code Treats the same type of housing developments differently Unclear on which standards apply to developments with a mix of detached and attached housing types Proposed amendment No increase to the amount of available land for high density residential Does not remove requirements for high density residential Improves transparency for all users Ensure accurate application of existing requirements Planning and Zoning commission recommended conditional approval Images added to satisfy condition 1. Defining housing types 2. Aligning existing parking & design standards 3. Clarifying recreation and open space standards 3. Applying R-6 perimeter setbacks with adjacent uses 4. Clarifying application of R-6 internal setbacks to single-family and attached units 20 Town Council Meeting Regular Session October 5, 2022 Public Hearing: Proposed Code Amendment to revise the development review process and other changes October 5, 2022 27 Purpose Process changes and other improvements to address gaps, improve organization and align with State law Conformance with the General Plan and meets Town Council’s Strategic Leadership Plan objective Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval 28 Key Points 1. Increasing efficiency by consolidating duplicative staff reviews 4. Removing outdated processes or conflicts with State law 2. Reducing confusion by using industry terms 3. Improving organization and address gaps within the review process 5. Maintaining effective public participation and OV design standards 29 Issues: Inefficient with duplicative reviews by staff Creates confusion on what details will be provided when for residents, developers and decision-makers 1. Increase efficiency: Existing Process Town Council Approval Planning and Zoning Commission 2nd Neighborhood Meeting Staff Review Conceptual Design Review 1st Neighborhood Meeting Pre-application Staff Approval Resubmittal (as needed) Staff Review Final Design Review Grading Permit Issuance Staff Approval Resubmittal (as needed) Staff Review Construction Plans Conceptual Site Plan Final Site Plan 1. Increase Efficiency: Duplicative reviews 30 Town Council Approval Planning and Zoning Commission 2nd Neighborhood Meeting Staff Review Detailed site and landscape design submittal 1st Neighborhood Meeting Pre-application Grading Permit Issuance Staff Approval Resubmittal (as needed) Staff Review Construction Plans 1. Increase efficiency: Proposed Process 31 Proposed solution: Adapt to field tested process by consolidating duplicate staff review 7 months 6 months Final Plat and Construction Plans Combination of conceptual and final design review Final Design Review Final Plat and Construction Plans Conceptual Design Review Potential to save 6 months! 1. Increase efficiency: Time Savings Existing Process (19 months) Proposed Process with PZC and TC review maintained (13 months) 32 Result: Saves staff time and gets more details upfront during public review process 33 2. Reduce confusion by using industry terms Development PlanPreliminary Plat Master Development Plan Issues: “Conceptual” and “final design” are unique to OV Creates confusion for new businesses, consultants and residents Proposed Solution: Use common industry terms Preliminary Plat –arrangement of lots and common areas Development Plan –site planning for individual projects Master Development Plan –site planning for larger areas. Required to create a cohesive center 3. Improve Organization and Address Gaps 34 Amendment is largely formatting and “housekeeping” items Issue: Terminology and formatting must be updated to reflect changes Proposed solutions: Organize development review process in a step-by-step manner. Update terms throughout entire code Address Gaps Master Development Plans •Issue: Master Development Plans done but not specifically required in code •Proposed solution: Require a Master Development Plan to create cohesive centers Temporary Real Estate Offices •Issue: Parameters for the length of time a “temporary real estate office” can operate are undefined •Proposed solution: Maintain existing 2-year operational period and allow one 2-year extension approvable by the PZA and a subsequent 2-year extension approvable by Town Council Architecture design changes •Issue: Parameters for a substantial architectural change (requires PZC or TC consideration) is unclear •Proposed solutions: Maintains the existing criteria -no more than a 25% change to the building façade or number of models •Add criteria conducted in practice: Must comply with the Design Standards to the same extent as originally approved and not impact compatibility, streetscapes, or adjoining properties 35 4. Remove outdated processes or conflicts with State law Example of previous approved sign criteria Sign Criteria Process –Only change proposed to the decision-making authorities Code compliant sign designs for commercial or employment centers Issue: Process is outdated with the adoption of the Design Principles and Standards Existing -Code compliant sign criteria requires Planning and Zoning Commission approval •Neighborhood meetings not required •No attendance from the public at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings •Design Principles and Standards implemented in 2009 = High-quality designs approved by Commission with little to no changes Proposed solution -Allow administrative approval of a code compliant sign criteria Filing of Type 1 (Major) General Plan Amendments Issue: Processes conflicts with State law •Existing –Must be filed by April 30 and considered by Council by end of calendar year at a single public hearing Proposed Solution –Align with new State law •May be filed throughout the year and considered by Council within 12 months of when the proposal is made •Remove requirement for all GPAs to be considered at a single public hearing Independently resolving conflicts between zoning and land use Issue: Outdated requirements create a liability for the Town •Permits the Town to independently resolve the 52 conflicts Proposed solutions: •Complete inventory during the 10-year General Plan update. •Review land use changes during the General Plan update or on a case-by-case basis 4. Remove outdated processes or conflicts with State law 36 37 5. Maintains effective public participation and OV design standards Proposed process field tested within confines of existing code: Public participation maintained and effective No reduction in the types of plans required for development No changes to the design standards All design standards maintained No reduction to the amount of information reviewed by staff to ensure design standards are met 38 General Plan and Strategic Leadership Plan Meets the following goals and policies: Goal H: Increased opportunities for residents to provide meaningful input on Town decisions and planning. CC.19: Provide ongoing and easy access to Town information and resources. Maintains the following guiding principles: Preserve the scenic beauty and environment Keep the unique community identity as a special place Create a complete community Manage how we grow and maintain high design standards Grow the number of high-quality employment opportunities Strategic Leadership Plan Leverage the growing positive relationships with local businesses to develop enhanced strategies that make Oro Valley more business friendly. 39 Summary and Recommendation Proposed code amendment to update processes and other changes: Increases efficiency Reduce confusion Improve organization Address gaps Remove outdated processes or conflicts with State law Maintains effective public participation Maintains OV design standards Planning and Zoning Commission recommended conditional approval Condition addressed in Attachment 1 Town Council Meeting Regular Session October 5, 2022 Parks Bond Projects Update October 5, 2022 Current Status Overview Presentation Outline: Review the completion status of each Bond element and their associated schedules Review of financial status of all projects –expenditures vs. funding Receive Council direction moving forward 45 Naranja Park Expansion Project Update -October 5, 2022 46 Project Status 47 Overview: Conceptual Design Engineering Construction Earthwork and Grading Utilities and Infrastructure Fields, Parking Areas, Courts Buildings and Site Amenities 48 2022 2023 J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Project Phasing: GMP 5: Park Improvement Construction Pre-Construction Services GMP 1: Grading Construction Park Improvement Design GMP 4: Utility Install Underground Utility Design GMP 2: Walkway Construction GMP 3: Material Pre-Purchase Earthwork Design 49 Construction Highlights: •Workdays ………………………………………………………. •Days without injury accident ………………….................... •Saguaros salvaged and replanted …………................... •Scraper hours ………………………………………………….. •Dozer hours …………………………………………………….. •Dust control water truck hours …………………………….. •Linear feet of safety fence installed .…………..…………. •Cubic Yards of Earth Moved ...……………………………… •Earthwork and Grading Percent Complete ……………... 128 128 12 2,615 963 1,269 5,100 387,085 98% 50 Challenges Encountered: •Rain delays •Coordination with TEP during monsoon season •Buried and unsuitable soil materials •Long lead time for materials and equipment •Construction cost escalation 51 Responses to Challenges: •Accelerated engineering of key project elements •Pre-Purchase of materials and equipment •Potable water pipe, valves, hydrants, etc. •Irrigation pipe, valves, and fittings •Electrical conduit •Sand / drainage gravel for sand base fields 52 Anticipated Completion Schedule: •Complete Mass Grading……………………………………. •Complete Underground Utility Installation …………….... •Complete Irrigation / Sand Base for Fields ...................... •Plant Turf Grass Fields………………………………………… •Complete Splash Pad………………….……………………. •Complete Park Drives and Parking Areas ………………. •Complete Park Buildings…………………………………….. •Complete Skate Park and Dog Park……………………… •Substantial Completion of Project…………………………. October 2022 February 2023 April 2023 May 2023 July 2023 August 2023 August 2023 September 2023 November 2023 53 Design Updates 54 Design Update -Fields: Image added here 55 Design Update –Skate Park: Image added here 56 Design Update –Skate Park: 57 Design Update –Splash Pad*: *Shade canopy not shown 58 Design Update –Splash Pad: 59 Design Update –Splash Pad: 60 Design Update –Splash Pad: 61 Design Update -Courts: 62 Design Update –Dog Park: 63 Golf Irrigation Replacement Phase 1 –Replacement of the El Conquistador Course Irrigation system is now complete and operating. This is considered substantial completion and was achieved in schedule Currently correcting punch list items Ribbon Cutting is on October 26 Full completion with all punch list items complete October 8 64 Tennis Courts Replacement This project is nearing completion. All concrete in place. Major items being completed are surface finishing and fence fabric (netting) Ribbon Cutting is on October 26 Substantial completion will be November 4 Full completion with all punch list items complete November 15 65 Community Center Parking Lot Progress to date: Secured a land exchange agreement with the adjacent dirt lot property owner. Working on Community Center ADA remediation options project –could impact the design of the parking lot Will continue to hold detailed construction design until Council direction is received for the Community Center ADA modifications are determined 66 Multi-Use Paths Progress to date: Designing the construction details for the construction of the La Cañada MUP Received complete funding to expand the Naranja MUP to fully connect from La Cañada to 1 st Avenue This is Federal funding, where the management of the project will be conducted by ADOT as the Town is not certified to manage this type of fund This will be a complete package: design, bidding and construction management by ADOT CDO to JDK Park MUP –Land acquisition along the Rooney Wash Levee is in progress Schedule: La Cañada MUP –currently under design: Expect design to finish early January 2023 Bidding and construction contracting project Jan/Feb 2023 Construction finishing June 2023 Naranja Drive MUP –once ADOT has started the project, a schedule will be forthcoming CDO to JDK MUP –Schedule currently on hold pending both land acquisition and Council direction moving forward 67 Financial Overview of all Bond Projects 68 Financial Overview of all Bond Projects Encumbered Expenditures are those project elements that are under contract and are obligated. For Naranja Park, these are the CMAR GMP’s and approved change orders under contract. For the Golf Irrigation Replacement –both phases of replacement are already under contract. For Tennis Courts Replacement, this is the base contract and all change orders. This contract concludes shortly. For the MUP’s –this is the design contract for the La Cañada MUP construction. Estimated Expenditures are those project elements that are not under contract nor are fully designed for full contractor pricing to place under contract. For Naranja Park, these do not have a completed design so the contractor can create a GMP and start construction. For Golf Irrigation and Courts Replacements –this represents the portion of the Town Owned Contingency that is unused. For the Community Center Parking Lot –this is purely an estimate as detailed construction design has not started. For the MUP’s –again, detailed construction design is not completed for contractor take-off and construction bidding. Encumbered Estimated Naranja Park Expansion 9,606,390$ 24,059,067$ 33,665,457$ Golf Irrigation Replacement 8,368,276$ 784,942$ 9,153,218$ Tennis Court Replacements 2,752,116$ 168,928$ 2,921,044$ Community Center Parking Lot -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Multi-Use Paths 77,590$ 3,542,410$ 3,620,000$ Total 20,804,372$ 30,555,347$ 51,359,719$ 25,000,000$ 2,100,000$ 4,623,498$ 420,000$ 1,000,000$ 33,143,498$ 18,216,221$ Short Fall Community Center Fund ARPA Amenity Expenditure Bond RTA Federal Total Expenditures Funding Sources Total 69 Mitigation Plan to Close Shortfall Revised Expenditures : Area by area detail to follow. Revised Funding Source: A substantial amount available money from the CIP Fund has been added into the Funding to help close the shortfall gap. This is not currently in the adopted budget detail. This is a shortfall mitigation measure being proposed by staff to close the shortfall gap. The proposed $9.45M is composed of: •$4 million in Capital Fund reserves •$3 million in excess General Fund reserves from finishing FY 21/22 -$3 million to the good of what was forecasted in the adopted budget •$400,000 in available Highway Fund reserves, from finishing FY 21/22 -$400,000 to the good of what was forecasted in the adopted budget •$2,050,000 Reallocation of future Parks projects Naranja Park Expansion 33,665,457$ 6,200,074$ 27,465,383$ Golf Irrigation Replacement 9,153,218$ 400,000$ 8,753,218$ Tennis Court Replacements 2,921,044$ 168,928$ 2,752,116$ Community Center Parking Lot 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ Multi-Use Paths 3,620,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,620,000$ Total 51,359,719$ 8,769,002$ 42,590,717$ 25,000,000$ 2,100,000$ 4,623,498$ 420,000$ 1,000,000$ 9,450,000$ 42,593,498$ (2,781)$ Revised Expenditures Amenity New Total Revised Funding Sources Total Short Fall Savings MeasuresExpenditure Bond Community Center Fund Capital Improvement (CIP) Fund ARPA RTA Federal 70 Naranja Park Expansion Expenditure Detail Expenditure Notes: The main portion of the Encumbered Expenditure is the mass grading, pre-purchase of main infrastructure materials and completing of the walkway between fields 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. The construction contract line item represents the total of all contractors contributing to this construction project. Town Owned Contingency is a small fixed estimate of $50,000 added to the project to cover costs of unforeseen small issues that arise during the GMP’s. Suggested Budget Shortfall Mitigation Measures: Determine which remaining infrastructure and amenity items can be deferred to a later CIP or identify another revenue source to pay for said shortfall. The following two slides will detail the various amenities, the estimated cost of each and a tier ranking system, along with mitigation proposals: Tier 1 –Must build –under contract or essential for building park Tier 2 –Should build –new or needed amenity for the Town Tier 3 –Can be deferred to a future CIP Budget Project Element Encumbered Estimated Total Construction Contracts 6,953,600$ 24,042,063$ 30,995,663$ Project Design Consultant 1,816,168$ 1,816,168$ Contractor Pre-Construction Services 183,325$ 183,325$ Geotech Subcontractor for the Town 56,519$ 56,519$ Project Manager 400,000$ 400,000$ Survey 20,996$ 20,996$ New PW Operations Yard 142,786$ 142,786$ Owner Contingency 32,996$ 17,004$ 50,000$ Total 9,606,390$ 24,059,067$ 33,665,457$ 71 Naranja Park Expansion Expenditure Detail Naranja Park Expansion Infrastructure & Amenity List Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Totals Tier Reasoning General Conditions 1,732,445$ 1,732,445$ Contractor Overhead costs for construction Mass Grading 4,804,277$ 4,804,277$ Must be completed to build current and future park elements Utility Material Long Lead Items 1,640,711$ 1,640,711$ Must be completed to build current and future park elements Infrastructure Work 1,168,426$ 1,168,426$ Must be completed to build current and future park elements Musette Road 1,035,578$ 1,647,046$ 2,682,624$ A portion is a safety element, the other paving approach Skatepark, Pump Track, Basketball 2,264,830$ 2,264,830$ Element the Town currently does not offer Splash Pad 3,086,044$ 3,086,044$ Creates a free amenity that has more access to the community Pickle Ball 852,010$ 852,010$ Large user group in need of more play areas Parking 1,991,418$ 1,821,115$ 3,812,533$ Must provide parking, but surface with less expensive materials Ops & Maintenance Center 100,000$ 1,961,082$ 2,061,082$ Operate as today, provide security fence Multi-Use Fields 385,203$ 4,642,237$ 770,832$ 5,798,272$ Needs to be built to reduce wear & tear on existing fields RC Airplane Area 98,456$ 98,456$ Reestablishment to provide the Town's only RC Airfield Dog Park 993,953$ 993,953$ Reestablishment needed if Pump/Skate/Bball built - based on use 12,858,059$ 11,937,530$ 6,200,074$ 30,995,663$ Totals 72 Naranja Park Expansion Expenditure Detail Suggested Budget Shortfall Mitigation Measures: Defer construction of Tier 3 park amenities –Savings of $6,200,074 which includes: Defer lighting north two multi-use fields –Savings of $770,832. Keep the existing south half of Musette as is and pave all vehicle areas with double shot chip-seal with slurry coating –Savings of $2,904,519. Eliminate all curbing except that required to manage drainage –Savings of $563,642. Pairing down operations area, defer construction of all elements within this area – Savings of $1,961,082. Total savings -$6,200,074 73 Irrigation Replacement Expenditure Detail Expenditure Notes: Was indicated from the beginning that ARPA would contribute $4,623,498. The cost of this project within the Bond is $4,500,000. Town Owned Contingency is an estimate of 10% of the Construction Contract and is added to the project to cover costs of unforeseen issues. To date only $29,720 has been used. The Total is slightly different that the Council Report of 02/17/2022 because the design fees were not included within the report. Suggested Budget Shortfall Mitigation Measures: All unused Town Owned Contingency at the end of the project will decrease the overall project expenditure amount. For phase 1, $400,000 of contingency could be released as this system is constructed and running. This leaves $384,942 for phase 2 contingency. Project Element Encumbered Estimated Total Construction Contract 8,146,616$ 8,146,616$ Town Owned Contingency 29,720$ 784,942$ 814,662$ Design/Administration/Construction Staking 191,940$ 191,940$ Total 8,368,276$ 784,942$ 9,153,218$ 74 Tennis Courts Replacement Expenditure Detail Expenditure Notes: Town Owned Contingency is an estimate of 10% of the Construction Contract and is added to the project to cover costs of unforeseen issues. To date $87,345 has been used. Suggested Budget Overrun Mitigation Measures: All unused Town Owned Contingency at the end of the project will decrease the overall project expenditure amount. Presently that amount is $168,928. Project Element Encumbered Estimated Total Construction Contract 2,557,926$ 2,557,926$ Town Owned Contingency 86,865$ 168,928$ 255,793$ Design/Construction Administration 87,345$ 87,345$ Geotech Testing 19,980$ 19,980$ Total 2,752,116$ 168,928$ 2,921,044$ 75 Community Center Parking Lot Expenditure Detail Expenditure Notes: This is purely an estimate created from a schematic design. Original staff estimate is $1,4M, however there are unknowns, such as moving a TEP transformer and the cost of asphalt materials at the time of construction. Project Element Encumbered Estimated Total Current Estimate 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ Total -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ 76 Multi-Use Path Expenditure Detail Expenditure Notes: The encumbered expense for the La CañadaMUP is a design contract. Suggested Budget Shortfall Mitigation Measures: La Cañada MUP –only build within the gap area and leave the existing sidewalk in place. Savings of $500,000. Naranja MUP –Town just received $3.6M in Federal funding to expand the project from the park eastward to 1st Ave. But because the new funding is only replacing the anticipated $1M within the original scope, $1M is all that is being booked as an additional funding in respect to the budget shortfall. Defer the CDO to JDK MUP to a later CIP. Savings $1.5M. Project Element Encumbered Estimated Total La Cañada MUP 77,590$ 1,042,410$ 1,120,000$ Naranja MUP 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ CDO to JDK MUP 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ Total 77,590$ 3,542,410$ 3,620,000$ 77 Bond Projects Financial Discussion Staff needs to know how to proceed to meet Council expectations. Staff had previously stated we would bring back a complete picture of both cost of Bond elements as well as available funding. Now, we have a better understanding of the costs associated with all the Council identified elements. A plan has been presented to address the $18M shortfall. What is Council’s direction? 78 Parks Bond Projects Update Questions Comments 79 Town Council Meeting Regular Session October 5, 2022