The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff ReportMEETING DATE: 09/15/15 . ITEM NO: n cos Ito COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER , —) SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT A. DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AN ENGINEERED ASPHALT OVERLAY SOLUTION WITH THE RECOMMENDED CURB LINE DESIGN OF FOUR FOOT TREE PLANTER AREAS AND REPLACING UNSUITABLE STREET TREES AS IDENTIFED. B. APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS (NCE) AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE $35,000 FOR DESIGN CHANGES. C. APPROVE THE PROJECT SCHEDULE DELIVERING THE PROJECT WTHIN FOUR TO FIVE YEARS. D. APPROVE ESTIMATED FUNDING ALLOCATIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN TABLE A OF ATTACHMENT 4. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council: I) Direct staff to proceed with an engineered asphalt overlay solution with the recommended curb line design of four foot tree planter areas and replacing unsuitable street trees as identified in Attachment 5. 2) Approve an amendment to the Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) Agreement to include $35,000 for design changes. 3) Approve the project schedule delivering the project within four to five years. 4) Approve funding allocations as identified in Table A of Attachment 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has developed a comprehensive plan for delivery of the Almond Grove project that provides funding and schedule options for full project delivery. This plan includes finalizing the design, reviewing updated project costs, creation of a phased schedule, and review of funding sources to deliver the project. This report provides recommendations and options for each of three areas: paving materials, curb line design, and street trees. Additionally, the report identifies PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY Director of Parks and Public Works Reviewed by: ssistant Town Manager hkownAftomey4JAFinance PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (cont'd proposed four to five year schedules for delivering all ten streets with identified funding alignedto those schedules. The staff recommendations are driven by the recent increase in concrete costs and the availability of immediate funding solutions. BACKGROUND: The Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation project will renew the streets, curb and gutter, and sidewalks in the Almond Grove and Broadway Historic Districts. This project began with the rehabilitation of asphalt streets in the surrounding area in 2013 by way of a rubber cape seal project. The remainder of the project will provide for the rehabilitation of ten concrete streets in the Almond Grove and Broadway Historic Districts. In addition to the concrete streets, the project includes reconstruction of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk sections as well as driveway approaches and accessibility ramps, which are non - discretionary and discussed later in this report. Currently, the project has appropriated funds of approximately $3.7 million. Staff anticipates that the current allocated funding will allow for rehabilitation of Broadway and Bachman Avenues. Additional funds will be needed for the rehabilitation of the remaining concrete streets and funding options have been identified later in this report. At the December 17, 2012 Town Council meeting, staff provided an update to Council on rehabilitation options for the project and requested that Council provide input to staff regarding the project, including pavement material. Council instructed staff to hold discussions with the community on various project options including pavement choices for the rehabilitation of the streets. Outreach on this project with the community has been substantial, including: • Six community meetings conducted by Parks and Public Works (PPW) staff • Three community update reports mailed to residents • Community ballot on paving material preference mailed and tabulated • Three update reports to Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) • Presentation to the HPC with community outreach • Design discussion and presentation to Council with community outreach • Numerous community notifications by mail, Almond Grove e-mail list, and Nextdoor on public meetings as well as Committee and Council meetings •, Establishment of an Almond Grove web page for residents to obtain current project information At the December 2, 2013 Town Council meeting, Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a consultant design services agreement with NCE for the design of the Phase I Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation project, which included Broadway, Bachman and Tait Avenue, in an amount not to exceed $298,500 with allotted future change orders up to $30,000. The NCE agreement provided for a reconstruction of the Phase I streets in concrete. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 BACKGROUND (cont'd): Staff provided a design update to the Council on the project at the March 3, 2015 Town Council meeting. Staff requested Council authorize funding and provide direction on preparing bid documents to allow for bidding the project for both concrete and asphalt pavement and provide other design direction. Council directed staff to design the Almond Grove Reconstruction project for bid with concrete pavement, and not the asphalt option. At the May 18, 2015 Town Council Meeting, staff requested Council approval of the plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Broadway and Bachman Avenue in concrete and allow bid and award of these two streets within a specified budget. Council requested that staff provide costs for reconstruction of all of the Almond Grove and Broadway Historic District concrete streets and return to Council with information on funding options for all of these streets in conjunction with the discussion of the approval of the FY 2015/16 CIP budget. During the FY 2015/16 CIP budget discussion at the June 19, 2015 Town Council meeting, staff provided costs for reconstruction of all of the Almond Grove and Broadway District concrete streets and provided Council with possible funding options for financing the rehabilitation of all ten concrete streets in the Almond Grove and Broadway Districts. Staff told Council they would return in the fall to provide more detailed information regarding project funding and to further discuss the Almond Grove street design. Based on community outreach and Council direction, staff moved forward with a design for Broadway, Bachman, and Tait Avenues. The Broadway and Bachman design is 100% complete and the design for Tait is 70% complete. Design and construction funding for the remaining seven concrete streets and the additional construction funding needed for the reconstruction of Tait will be discussed later in this report. DISCUSSION: The development of the final project plans and specifications for the Phase I Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation project is the culmination of several years of design development and community outreach on the project. The goals for the project were established based on extensive public outreach and Council direction. Key decision points during the discussion of the design included three important design elements of the streets: pavement materials, trees, and street width. Below is a summary of these issues with staff recommendations and options for Council to change the design. Projects such as the Almond Grove project require the use of consultants for the design. The consultant provides expertise and work capacity that the Town does not have in house. A comprehensive design is essential for these types of projects as it ensures that the new construction will work with the existing conditions. Examples include ensuring the new work conforms or matches existing driveways, matches streets that are remaining, and allows for stormwater flow. The scope of work for NCE has been closely defined. Changes PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): in the design will require additional work by the engineering consultant and there are additional costs associated with this work (Attachment 1). Staff continues to tightly manage the consultant and has reviewed the costs to date as well as the proposed additional costs for changes. The costs are fair and appropriate. This is validated by benchmark design costs based on a California Multi- Agency CIP Benchmark Study indicating that for this type of design the average for this area is 16% of the total construction cost ( htto:// ene. lacity .orWtechdocs/cabm/Benchmarkin report 2014 odfl Based on current estimated project costs, the total design cost from NCE will be about 6% of the total construction cost. Staff recommends the continued use of NCE through the completion of design for the first three streets. For subsequent streets, staff will issue a new Request for Proposal and conduct an evaluation for selection of the design firm for those streets. Paving Materials Three options are available for rehabilitation of the concrete streets. From most expensive to least expensive these are reconstruction with concrete, reconstruction with asphalt, or placement of a thick engineered overlay on top of the existing concrete (asphalt overlay). Costs for these materials have changed since this information was last provided to Council as concrete has increased significantly in price due to a large increase in building construction, creating high demand for concrete. Asphalt prices are directly correlated to the price of oil and vary accordingly while concrete prices can vary depending on the demand for concrete. This new total cost information for all ten concrete streets is reflected below. These are estimates only and are subject to market fluctuations. A breakdown of individual streets and estimated costs is provided as Attachment 2. Table 1 Concrete Reconstruction $18,953,100 Asphalt Reconstruction $16,135,100 Asphalt Overlay $11,785,900 *Subject to market fluctuations These costs include replacement of curb and gutter (discussed later in this report) as well as sidewalk and design costs. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that state and local governments ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the pedestrian routes in the public right of way, therefore mandating sidewalk repairs and curb ramps which have been included in the overall project cost. The size and scope of the project triggers ADA compliance requirements (see Department of Justice htt):/ /www.ada.gov /doi -fhwa- ta.htm and United States PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION1cont'd): Access Board https: / /www. access- board.gov/guidelines- and - standards /streets - sidewalks /public- rights-of- -way /guidance- and- research/accessible- public- rights -of -way- planning- and - design -for- alterations/ chapter- 2%E2%80 %94alterations). If the Council were to direct staff to not include ADA compliance of existing sidewalks, the project cost would decrease up to $60,000 for the Broadway and Bachman portion of the project. Staff does not recommend this option as 1) the cost is relatively small in comparison with the entire project cost and 2) exclusion could provide an opportunity for legal challenge. Life cycle costs were presented previously to Council as part of the Operating and Capital Budget Addendum for the June 2, 2015 Council meeting noting that concrete paving lasts longer than asphalt paving. Maintenance costs presented in the Addendum showed maintenance based on recommended standards, resulting in higher maintenance costs for asphalt than concrete. The design options, their respective advantages, disadvantages, and costs are presented below: Table 2 Paving Options Pros Cone 40+ year life expectancy High up front coat Very low outdistance cost Long construction timefratne, including 5 to 7 day drying torte Cool pavement Disruption to neighborhood due to lack of access for extended timeframe Concrete Reconstruction Meets Historic District Resolution 2165 and 2166 Subgade excavation may uncover additional costs requireriems Patchingover time will show the patched areas More Expensive Option Asphalt is the most conventional pavement option Disruption to neighborhood due to lack of access for extended timefmme Ong3ingrehabilitation possible Subgrade excavation may uncover additional costs More cost effective upfront (15% cheaper than concrete Major rehabilitation necessary after 20 years Asphalt Reconstruction reconstmction) Routingmanuenance required Dark surface (not a cool pavement) Does not meet Historic District Resolution requirements Asphalt is the most conventional pavement option 18 to 20 year life expectancy before rehabilitation is necessary More cost effective upfront (38% cheaper than concrete Routing maintenance required reconstruction) Quickest construction timefrume with least disruption to Dark surface (not a cool pavement) Asphalt Owday residents Less chance for unforeseen costs as subgade is largely Cracking may reflect up from concrete to the surface undisturbed Does not meet Historic District Resolution requirements PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Following the presentation of the information on asphalt and concrete pavement materials during the community meetings, the neighborhood appeared split on the type of pavement materials desired for the rehabilitation of the Almond Grove district streets. For informational purposes, staff mailed a ballot to all property owners whose property fronted a street that is scheduled for rehabilitation, either during the first phase or future phases of the project to ascertain the neighborhood's preference regarding paving surface material. The results of the informational ballot showed that overall approximately 60% of the resident's favored concrete pavement and 40% of residents favored asphalt. The results for all ten streets are contained in Attachment 3. All three of the options will provide for a well - constructed residential street. Staff is recommending rehabilitation of the streets with an engineered asphalt overlay due to the recent increase in concrete costs and because this type of rehabilitation will be less impactful to residents. Ultimately, from a cost standpoint, this has the least impact on re- directing reserves typically used for other capital improvement programs and operating expenses, and requires no infusion of new, additional revenue sources (see Attachment 4: Detailed Funding Options for Each Pavement Alternative). The Town has successfully rehabilitated concrete streets in the past with this method of treatment. Areas of concrete streets overlaid with asphalt include Santa Cruz Avenue from Highway 9 to Blossom Hill Road, as well as sections of Hernandez, Pennsylvania, and Glen Ridge Avenues in the Almond Grove. Santa Cruz Avenue was overlaid approximately 10 years ago and the Almond Grove concrete streets were overlaid approximately 15 years ago. Previous direction provided to staff from Council was to move forward with the reconstruction of the streets in concrete. Council can direct staff to move forward with concrete or an alternative pavement material for the Almond Grove streets as outlined below. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to pursue final design and project bidding for one of these options for pavement materials (the staff recommendation is in bold): a) Concrete reconstruction as currently designed. b) Asphalt Reconstruction. This option requires amending the consultant contract to include design costs of $25,000 for Broadway, Bachman, and Tait (staff has accounted for these costs in the funding scenario options presented in Attachment 4). Design changes are necessary in this scenario to align a different roadway thickness and different pavement surface with utility depths, driveways, and other adjoining structures. This results in new pavement cross sections, new specifications, corresponding quantities and engineers estimates, and generation of a new plan set. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): c) Engineered Asphalt Overlay. This option requires amending the consultant contract to include design costs of $35,000 for Broadway, Bachman, and Tait (staff has accounted for these costs in the funding scenario options presented in Attachment 4). Design changes include new pavement cross sections, new specifications, corresponding quantities and engineer's estimates, and generation of a new plan set with a concrete slab survey to determine slab sections requiring replacement. Curb Line Design Maintaining a healthy tree canopy is a goal of the project to maintain the historic character of the Almond Grove and Broadway neighborhoods and an important element to many residents of the area. As discussed with Council during the March 3, 2015 and May 19, 2015 Council meetings, the project recommends minor widening of some of the park strips to achieve the Town standard of a four foot wide park strip, which will promote healthy tree growth and provide protection for the new infrastructure. This also allows for larger canopy trees, such as the Red Maple, to be planted in the Almond Grove neighborhood. The design stays true to the combined historic balance of tree canopy and street width and provides for all streets to be no less than 36 feet wide, which is the Town standard for residential streets in Los Gatos. This minimum width will allow for two 10 -foot travel lanes and two 8 -foot parking lanes. The current design keeps the road width as wide as possible, while meeting park strip width standards. Street sections that are currently narrow will not change in width. For example, the narrow section of Tait Avenue between Main Street and Bean Avenue will not change in width. Whether Council chooses to keep the remaining street widths within the Almond Grove and Broadway Districts as is or allow for the park strips to be widened to four feet as needed by moving the curb line, the reconstruction project will require removal of the existing curb and gutter and replacement with new curb and gutter in any design scenario. The reasons for this include: • Shallow utility depths in the project area necessitate raising the designed pavement surface by several inches to prevent costly utility relocations. Retaining the current curb line would require increasing the depth of the utilities, adding additional design and construction costs. • Jackhammering/compacting equipment next to aged curb and gutter will likely cause the curb and gutter to crack and fail, resulting in costly change orders to repair the damage. • The existing curb height varies and is not standard. This prevents matching the curb and gutter with a new street section without costly design work. • Leaving aged curb and gutter next to new street sections means that the curb and gutter will continue to fail long before the new pavement structure. Replacement of the failing curb and gutter after the project is complete would require cutting into the new pavement sections. • Selective retention of sections would drive up project labor costs to work around them. PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Moving the curb line design back to the current curb line location will also add additional pavement width, increasing the pavement cost on Broadway and Bachman by approximately $40,000 and adding additional design costs as noted below. Staff recommends the wider planter strip with a minimum of a 36 -foot standard residential road width to allow for the planting of more majestic, larger canopy trees, balancing the historic tree canopy and street width in the area. With the major investment in this area, regardless of the type of street construction material chosen, the Town should seek high quality improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, trees) that truly embellish the character and quality of the neighborhoods. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to pursue final design and project bidding for one of these options for curb line design (staff recommendation in bold type): a) Provide a tree planter area of four feet to allow for the planting of larger canopy street trees and allow for no less than a 36 -foot street width as currently designed. b) Keep the existing curb line in place. Planter areas 24 inches or less will be replaced with concrete sidewalk. Planter areas greater than 24 inches will be planted with an appropriate street tree as recommended by the Town Arborist. This option requires amending the consultant contract to include $35,000 for this design change for Broadway, Bachman, and Tait. An additional budget appropriation of $35,000 would be required for this option. Street Trees The last two public meetings were held on April I" and 2 "a of this year with residents of Broadway and Bachman to discuss construction impacts and specific impacts to planter strips and street trees in front of their properties. In addition to these meetings, staff previously contacted residents by phone and e-mail, and held individual meetings with homeowners to discuss these issues. Based on the meetings with the homeowners and discussions with the Town Arborist, staff is recommending approximately 30 street trees be added and 40 street trees be replaced along Broadway and Bachman for a total of 70 new trees. A tree map for Broadway and Bachman Avenues, list of trees recommended for removal, reason for the recommendation, replacement tree, and the feedback from the adjacent property owner are provided in Attachment 5. Of the 25 residents contacted regarding the street trees in front of their property, two expressed objections to the removal of their adjacent trees. Staff will continue to work with these residents towards a resolution. The map demonstrates the large number of existing trees that are retained and the significant number of new trees (those that don't exist today) that will be planted. The street trees that are recommended for replacement on these streets are either unsuitable street trees or trees that are dying or blighted. Street trees considered to be unsuitable street trees are PAGE 9 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): trees that cause hazards such as lifting the sidewalk, curb, and /or gutter. These types of unsuitable streets trees are the main cause of sidewalk tripping hazards around the Town. These trees, such as Sweet Gum (also known as Liquid Amber) and Magnolias have roots that grow along the surface of the ground, pushing up sidewalks, curbs, and gutters as they grow and consequently require constant costly repair by the Town. In some situations very large and significant trees, especially Sycamore and Elm trees, are proposed to remain in spite of the effect on the sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Although these trees would not be recommended as street trees today, they are well established in the neighborhood. This tradeoff may result in some increased costs in sidewalk and curb replacement in the future but will help retain the character of the neighborhood. Tree canopy and preserving the historic feel of the neighborhood was brought up as an important issue by residents of the Almond Grove neighborhood during the community meetings. With this in mind, staff recommends Chinese Pistache and Red Maple as replacement trees for the unsuitable, dying, or blighted trees due to their suitability as street trees, their beauty, and their substantial canopy. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed under one of these options for street trees (staff recommendation in bold type): a) Replace unsuitable street trees, as defined by this report and determined by the Town Arborist, leaving select larger established trees. b) Remove and replace all unsuitable street trees. Project Schedule Broadway and Bachman are 100% designed, with the exception of design changes that may be requested by Council as noted in this report. Staff is recommending bidding these projects in December and returning to Council in February with review and approval of bids. It is recommended that the remaining Almond Grove concrete streets be put out to bid based on the below schedule. This schedule prioritizes the rehabilitation of the streets based on existing street Pavement Condition Index (PCI), street location and street length. As Tait is 70% designed, it is recommended this street be scheduled for rehabilitation in spring of 2017. Programming of the remaining streets is flexible. Reconstruction of streets is highly impactful to a neighborhood and reconstruction of more than two streets per year is not recommended. Impacts include changes to traffic flow, access to residences, on street parking, and pedestrian and bicycle access. Additionally, it will be difficult for a contractor to reconstruct more than two streets during the limited construction period of mid -May (after the Cat's Hill Race) to October. Requesting a contractor to expedite the construction schedule to allow for the reconstruction of additional roads during this timeframe would most likely add cost to the project PAGE 10 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): in addition to the adding greater impacts to residents. The proposed reconstruction schedule for concrete and asphalt is outlined in Table 3. Table 3 Asphalt overlay is less impactfrl to the neighborhood and could lead to expedited project delivery at no additional cost. Staff is estimating a four year project timeline as outlined in Table 4. Table 4 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Spring 2020 Street Tait (Collector) Glen Ridge Wilder Massol PCI 37 27 44 48 Street Bayview Almendra Bean Nicholson PCI 39 27 37 47 Asphalt overlay is less impactfrl to the neighborhood and could lead to expedited project delivery at no additional cost. Staff is estimating a four year project timeline as outlined in Table 4. Table 4 Funding Options The rehabilitation of the Almond Grove streets has a total project cost ranging from $19 million for concrete to $11.7 million for Asphalt Overlay. Up to $14.3 million of one -time, cash on- hand is available to fund this project. Depending on the materials selected, this accounts for 75% to 100% of the total project costs. The one -time funding sources identified for the project are as follows (ranges provided as total cost depends on material selected): Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Street Tait (Collector) Glen Ridge Massol PCI 37 27 48 Street Bayview Wilder Nicholson PCI 39 44 47 Street Almendra Bean PCI 1 27 1 37 Funding Options The rehabilitation of the Almond Grove streets has a total project cost ranging from $19 million for concrete to $11.7 million for Asphalt Overlay. Up to $14.3 million of one -time, cash on- hand is available to fund this project. Depending on the materials selected, this accounts for 75% to 100% of the total project costs. The one -time funding sources identified for the project are as follows (ranges provided as total cost depends on material selected): PAGE I 1 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Table 5 Available Funding: Cash On Hand Proposed Use Amount Existing Project Budget $3,696,000 Capital Projects Reallocation $2,132,700 Excess ERAF $305,259 - $330,000 Total $6,133,959 - $6,158,700 Reserves General Fund Reserve $2,020,178 FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $2,000,000 General Fund Reserve for Capital $940,000 GFAR Fund Balance $438,792 Post Retirement Medical $0 - $400,000 Reserves for Productivity & Special Studies $253,000 Compensated Absences $0 - $589,316 Total Reserves $5,651,970 - $6,641,286 Internal Service Funds Equipment Replacement $0 - $1,488,687 Total Internal Service Funds $0 - $1,488,687 Total Proposed Use of Funds $11,785,929 - $14,288,673 Existing Capital Cash On Hand and Excess Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) Dollars Proposed funding for this project includes the use of existing project funds of $3.7 million, the reallocation of $2.1 million in proposed FY 2015/16 Capital projects and dedication of $2.0 million in FY 2014/15 year -end excess dollars to the Almond Grove project, for total funding of $7.8 million. Use of these funds prioritizes the Almond Grove project as the main capital priority of the Town, resulting in the Town not being able to fund other capital and infrastructure needs including, for example, the addition of more bike lanes, in the immediate future. PAGE 12 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): In addition, Santa Clara County provided a property tax update in late August acknowledging that the Town would receive approximately $330,000 in one -time excess Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF) for FY 2015/16. These funds represent excess tax revenues collected above the state mandated minimum funding level and therefore being returned to the taxing entities. Excess ERAF monies had not been budgeted for FY 2015/16 as it was not expected that additional monies would be available. Depending on the materials selected, staff recommends allocating between $305,000 and $330,000 of these monies to the Almond Grove project as these are one -time funds that should not be used to fund on -going operations. Reserve Funds Staff recommends reallocation of up to $4.6 million in reserve funds to the Almond Grove project as follows, leaving remaining reserve funds of $11.9 million, meeting the Town's reserve Policies, as discussed in more detail below. Table 6 Use of Funds: Reserves Beginning Fund Balance Use ofFtns Ending Fund Balance GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $10,800,000 $2,020.178 $8,779,822 GF Reserve for Capital $940,000 $940,000 - GFARFundBalance $438,792 $438,792 - Post Retirement Medical $400,000 $400,000 - Reserve for Productivity & Special Studies $590,000 $253,000 $337,000 Compensated Absences (maintains minimum 75% funding level) $2,281,656 $0 - $589,316 $2,281,656 - $1,692,340 Total Recontmentkd Use of Reserves $4,051,970 - $4,641,286 Rentalining Reserves Open Space Reserve $562,000 - $562,000 Vasona Land Sale $411,245 - $411,245 Sustainabnliy Initiatives $140.553 - $140,553 Total Remaining Reserves $16,564,246 - 1$11.922.960 - $12,512,276 General Fund Reserve for Budget Stabilization and Catastrophic: Council Policy requires that the Town maintain a reserve at a "minimum of 25% of General Fund ongoing operating expenditures, equally divided between the Catastrophic Reserve (12.5 %) and Budget Stabilization Reserve (12.5%)." Currently, the combined total of the Catastrophic and Budget Stabilization Reserves totals $10.8 million, or 31% of the Town's General Fund ongoing expenditures, $2.0 million more than required under the Council Policy. Staff recommends dedicating the excess $2.0 million above the 25% threshold amount to the Almond Grove project. This would leave a remaining fund balance in the reserve account of $8.8 million, or 25% of the ongoing General Fund expenditures. Similar reserve levels across the State vary significantly, from a required 50% reserve in Yorba Linda ($15 million) to no required reserve in Salinas. Locally, the City of Campbell requires an emergency reserve of 10% of prior year General Fund Revenues plus an additional $6.0 million PAGE 13 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): reserve for economic fluctuations and $1.0 million operations reserve. The City of Palo Alto requires a 15% to 20% reserve with a target of 18.5% of general fund expenditures and the City of Morgan Hill requires a 15% to 25% reserve. The City of Mountain View requires a 25% reserve for General Fund expenditures while the City of Saratoga requires a minimum reserve of 20% of General Fund expenditures. The City of Sunnyvale requires a 30% reserve split between a Budget Stabilization Fund and Contingency Reserve. Reducing the Town's Catastrophic and Budget Stabilization reserves down to the 25% threshold would keep the Town generally consistent with surrounding jurisdictions, retaining a funding level of $8.8 million. Capital Fund Balance and Unallocated Reserve: Staff recommends use of $1.4 million in existing Capital reserve monies and unallocated fund balance. This is money that exists within the Capital program and has yet to be allocated to existing projects. Post - Retirement Medical: In anticipation of a significant increase in Town Other Post - Employment Benefit (OPEB) costs related to the 2011 actuarial valuation update, the FY 2009/10 budget reserved $400,000 of additional monies to meet the required annual funding. Due to improved investment earnings in the trust and favorable demographics, the money has not been needed. The five -year plan indicates that there is sufficient funding available to meet the Town's funding obligations in the future, and therefore these funds are not needed at this time. Reserve for Productivity and Special Studies: Staff recommends allocating $253,000 of the $590,000 available funding to the Almond Grove project. This would retain $337,000 in the reserves, $100,000 which has been committed for a School Traffic Study and $237,000 which has been committed to affordable housing with participation from Santa Clara County. Compensated Absences: The Town currently has $2.3 million set aside in a reserve for compensated absences. Compensated absences account for accrued vacation and sick leave that staff have accumulated during employment but not used. Upon separation from the Town, employees are entitled to reimbursement for such absences. At the current funding level of $2.3 million, the Town is fully funded for all accrued compensated leave time. If either concrete or asphalt is selected for the project, staff recommends allocation of approximately $600,000 from this reserve to the Almond Grove project, leaving a remaining balance of $1.7 million. Accounting standards require that one year's worth of anticipated vacation and sick pay -outs (approximately $300,000) be accrued as a liability each fiscal year end. The Town's approved budget includes an annual allocation for these payouts. Should the Council choose to use asphalt overlay, use of this reserve is not being recommended by staff because the funds are not needed. Internal Service Funds Depending on the material selected, staff recommends use of up to $1.5 million in internal service funds, specifically monies from the equipment replacement. If the material selected is concrete, $1.5 million from the equipment replacement fund is recommended for use, leaving a total remaining total balance of $6.7 million in the Town's internal service funds as illustrated below: PAGE 14 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Table 7 Use of Funds: Internal Services Beghming Fund Balance Use of Funds Ending Fund Balmce Equipment Replacement $3,488,687 $0 - $1,488,687 $3,488,687 - $2,000,000 Total Recommended Use of Internal Service Funds $0 - $1,488,687 Remaining Irdemal Service FSmds ABAG Selflnswmce $974,063 - $974,063 Worker's Comp Selflnsm $666,785 - $666,785 Management information System $2,488,868 - $2,488,868 Office Stores $90,768 - $90,768 VehicleMamtemnce $331,190 - $331,190 Facilities M enance $178,765 - $178,765 Total Remaiaiog Internal Service Funds $ 19,126 - $6,730,439 - $8,219,126 Equipment Replacement Fund: The Town currently has $3.5 million in the equipment replacement fund which is money set -aside on an annual basis to fund future replacement of Town owned equipment. The $3.5 million approximates the amount of depreciation that has taken place on the Town's equipment. There is currently $590,000 within this fund that is unallocated to specific equipment replacements. During the May 5, 2015 budget study session, Money Matters and More, the Town's Director of Finance recommended that this fund be maintained at a minimum funding level of $2.0 million, which approximates four years of annual equipment purchases. Therefore, if concrete is selected as the rehabilitation material staff recommends reallocation of $1.5 million to the Almond Grove project. If the Council selects asphalt to complete the project, the unallocated amount of $590,000 is recommended to be reassigned to the Almond Grove project. If the Council selects asphalt overlay, staff is not recommending use of these funds because the project costs can be covered with other sources. Financial Conclusion With the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and planned funding source for the Almond Grove, the Almond Grove Rehabilitation project was modified in the Town's Capital Budget in FY 2013/14 to change the funding source from RDA monies to use of one -time Town funds. The Almond Grove Rehabilitation project is currently being given top priority for funding allocations. While it is a Council priority to fund the Almond Grove project, use of on- time funds is not a sustainable funding mechanism for on- going, future capital needs. New revenue measures should be considered to further support the Town's capital projects, infrastructure needs and the normal increased cost of providing services (see Council Agenda Item regarding Long Range Capital Funding). Additional funds ranging between $2.8 million and $4.7 million dollars will be needed to complete the final phase of the Almond Grove streets rehabilitation project should either concrete or asphalt be selected. Staff recommends that money come from new, on -going revenue sources as described in the long range capital funding staff report. There is no projected funding gap at this time for asphalt overlay as the project is fully fundable with existing use of Town reserves. PAGE 15 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 DISCUSSION (cont'd): Detailed recommended project funding plans for asphalt overlay, asphalt, and concrete are outlined in Attachment 4: Detailed Funding Options for Each Pavement Alternative. Place holders have been identified for "new revenue" sources where needed. ALTERNATIVES AND FISCAL IMPACTS: As discussed in this report, staff is recommending asphalt overlay to improve the Almond Grove streets with use of available cash on hand. Under this scenario, the Town can fully fund the project using existing project funds, excess ERAF monies, and reserve funds. Use of these funds would result in the Town losing interest income totaling approximately $170,000. Internal service monies are not needed under this scenario and there is no anticipated funding gap. Asphalt overlay has the least impact to the community and the Town's cash reserves and internal service funds. Approval of any new revenue options would directly fund the Town's other capital and infrastructure needs. Alternatively, the Council could consider: Alternative 1 — Concrete Reconstruction 1. Direct staff to proceed with a concrete reconstruction. 2. Approve the project schedule delivering the project over five years. Approve funding allocations as identified in Attachment 4, Table E and identify new revenue sources to fully fund the project. Fiscal Imp : Under this scenario, the fiscal impact includes significant use of current reserves as well as approximately $1.5 million in internal service fund monies as presented in the funding options discussion (Attachment 4, Table E). Use of this funding would result in the Town losing interest income totaling approximately $215,000. In addition, the Town would need to identify up to $4.7 million in additional revenues to fund the final stage of the project. Use of concrete has the most significant cost impact to the Town's reserves and existing cash on hand. Alternative 2 —Asphalt Reconstruction 1. Direct staff to proceed with an asphalt reconstruction project. 2. Approve an amendment to the NCE Agreement in the amount of $25,000 for design changes (staff has included these costs in the proposed cost estimate). 3. Approve the project schedule delivering the project over five years Approve funding allocations as identified in Attachment 4, Table C and identify new revenue sources to fully fund the project. PAGE 16 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PPW JOB NO. 13 -31 — ALMOND GROVE STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 ALTERNATIVES AND FISCAL IMPACTS (cont'd): Fiscal Impact: Under this scenario, the Town anticipates significant use of reserves to fund the project, as well as approximately $600,000 in internal service fund monies. Use of these funds would result in the Town losing interest income totaling approximately $200,000. New revenues would be needed to fund the remaining $2.7 million funding gap. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed with an engineered asphalt overlay solution with the recommended curb line design of four foot tree planter areas and replacing unsuitable street trees as identified in Attachment 5. 2. Approve an amendment to the Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) Agreement to include $35,000 for design changes. 3. Approve the project schedule delivering the project within four to five years. 4. Approve funding allocations as identified in Table A of Attachment 4. COORDINATION: This Staff Report has been coordinated with the Finance Department. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been filed. Attachments: 1. Fee Estimate for Additive Alternatives 2. Pavement Costs per Street for Almond Grove Streets 3. Almond Grove Votes 4. Detailed Funding Option for Each Pavement Alternative 5. Bachman Avenue and Broadway Tree Plan 6. Public Comments received through 11:00 a.m. Friday, September 11, 2015 /! ) # k/ �) \i \{ |! i/ \{ \/ \} � {\ {� }\ !/ {f � {\ }� / oil I Ga�� §��| ) # k/ �) \i \{ |! i/ \{ \/ \} � {\ {� }\ !/ {f � {\ }� ;) {� $�{ )(/ \/\ 2N /\ 2 !| \0 t{ !_ !! |) r; #! \ {)\ \ \ {t / -)}/ ME |! }�}) { /)\ | \ \ ) \ ! { } § \ /} / W U 2 . ATTACHMENT ! / ;) {� $�{ )(/ \/\ 2N /\ 2 !| \0 t{ !_ !! |) r; #! \ {)\ \ \ {t / -)}/ ME |! }�}) { /)\ | \ \ ) \ ! { } § \ /} / W U 2 . ATTACHMENT ! w W O U' 0 Z LnO J Q C O LL H W K H K W a F 0 O U H Z Q Q C f0 E t U co m 7 m 3 A CO ATTACHMENT 2 N eri ui ui 1n m a1 N n k _ N N N N j tD V O N N N N m ti ° °O O '> Lq M N N N N N N M m CO 0 c o L N M Dl e-1 N c9 N N m O] S O W Ol N N N N N m Lq m ^ N M � Ol N N 1 O O N 0p M I� ti ri .ti i N N N N O M 0 M O n n N M N � n u1 n V al ci M N N N N N V O a O1 N M 0 C Ol M n W tD N N N N N N N � N n � � a m N 00 N M N N N N N L L d Q Y Q Y Q Y Y N OJ Z in N Y m N Y L U U L L U I-0 of I-0 in F 018" "03 lleydsd Aeiaanp;Ieydsy ATTACHMENT 2 IV 2 0� S BFryrCFyA� �qN T M��F C, qqL m a SAS 0P �2 02 MN��FN � Nsr N A Ok @gOAO�F Nc�FF�T N� ® Concrete (97 votes = 60% of Total) 'J Asphalt (64 votes = 40% of Total) Ballots: 301 Sent; 161 Received �� +P, =53% Residents voted QP ATTACHMENT 3 MAIN ST <0S X02 +P @ qCy os, `Pq Q" �P ?o ( MqN ❑� cr �9roo q'S'o m`�v`r �'�' ? <FN�00 ¢ O O O NO O m Cy C� O MgN'9L F6 O 4 5 M 5.1114 o o o� O a O F2A� e 0 he SON 1 p Fg 4u v AV v Q Q K O p Al C Q WA G� Z O ❑9 ROrCFSl �PyyO\' h All 2 GRAYS< AFNNe F81 V 2 0� S BFryrCFyA� �qN T M��F C, qqL m a SAS 0P �2 02 MN��FN � Nsr N A Ok @gOAO�F Nc�FF�T N� ® Concrete (97 votes = 60% of Total) 'J Asphalt (64 votes = 40% of Total) Ballots: 301 Sent; 161 Received �� +P, =53% Residents voted QP ATTACHMENT 3 MAIN ST Detailed Funding Options for Each Pavement Alternative Four to five year project funding plans for asphalt overlay, asphalt and concrete have been developed for Council review with an identified place holder for "new revenue" sources to make up the funding shortage for the concrete and asphalt options. There is no projected funding gap at this time for asphalt overlay as the project is fully fundable with existing use of Town reserves. Asphalt Overlay The estimated project cost with use of asphalt overlay totals $11.8 million and can be fully funded with available cash on hand. As indicated, the asphalt overlay application has less impact to the neighborhood which could lead to an expedited project delivery timeframe with no additional cost to the Town. Staff is currently proposing a four year timeframe for project completion with selection of asphalt overlay. The recommended project funding plan is as follows: Table A: Almond Grnve Street Rehnhilitntinn Rnndino Plan- Aenh�lt Under this scenario, staff proposes to use neither internal service fund money nor any funds in the post - retirement medical reserve. In addition, approximately $25,000 would remain in excess ERAF funds which could be reallocated to an existing or new capital project. Reserves and internal service funds would be retained at a healthy funding level as outlined below: ATTACHMENT Rehabilhation Spring 2016 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Spring 2019 Cost Fund Balance FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 Broadway /Bachman $ 2,137,692 Existing Project Budget $ 3,696,000 $ 2,137,692 Total Funds Available $ 2,137,692 TaitBayview /Almendta $ 3,726,306 Existing Project Budget $ 1,558,308 $ 1,558,308 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 1,612,065 GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 555,933 Total Funds Available $ 3,726,306 Wilder/Bean/Glen Ridge $ 3,029,980 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 520,635 $ 520,635 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 2,020,178 $ 509,345 FY 2014/15 Year-End Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Total Funds Available $ 3,029,980 MassoVNicholson $ 2,891,951 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) GFAR Fund Balance $ 1,510,833 $ 438,792 $ 1,510,833 $ 438,792 Excess ERAF $ 330,000 $ 305,259 Designated Productivity $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Special Studies $ 490,000 $ 153,000 GF Reserve for Capital $ 384,067 $ 384,067 Total Funds Available Total Rehabilitation Cost $ 11,785,929 $ 2 891 951 $11,785,929 Under this scenario, staff proposes to use neither internal service fund money nor any funds in the post - retirement medical reserve. In addition, approximately $25,000 would remain in excess ERAF funds which could be reallocated to an existing or new capital project. Reserves and internal service funds would be retained at a healthy funding level as outlined below: ATTACHMENT Table B: Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation: Asphalt Overlay — Use of Funds Cash on Hand Beginning Fund Proposed Use 4 Ending Fund Existing Project Budget $ 3,696,000 $ 3,696,000 $ Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 2,132,700 $ - Excess ERAF $ 330,000 $ 305,259 $ 24,741 Reserves GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 940,000 $ - FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 10,800,000 $ 2,020,178 $ 8,779,822 GEAR Fund Balance $ 438,792 $ 438,792 $ - Post Retirement Medical $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 Reserve for Productivity & Special Studies $ 590,000 $ 253,000 $ 337,000 Compensated Absences $ 2,281,656 1 $ - $ 2,281,656 Open Space Reserve $ 562,000 $ - $ 562,000 Vasona Land Sale $ 411,245 $ - $ 411,245 Sustainability Initiatives $ 140,553 $ $ 140,553 Internal Service Funds Equipment Replacement $ 3,488,687 $ - $ 3,488,687 ABAG Self Insurance $ 974,063 $ - $ 974,063 Worker's Comp Self Insurance $ 666,785 $ - $ 666,785 Management Information System $ 2,488,868 $ - $ 2,488,868 Office Stores $ 90,768 $ - $ 90,768 Vehicle Maintenance $ 331,190 $ - $ 331,190 Facilities Maintenance $ 178,765 $ - 1 $ 178,765 Total S 32,942,072 $ 11,785,929 1 $ 21,156,143 While the Town is able to fully fund the Almond Grove project if asphalt overlay is the selected material, use of these one -time funding sources is not sustainable for on -going capital funding. Staff recommends new revenue sources still be considered to support the future capital and infrastructure needs of the town. 2 Asphalt The estimated project cost for use of asphalt totals $16.1 million. The Town can fund 83% of these costs, or $13.4 million with existing cash on hand, which includes the use of existing project funds, reallocation of other capital project funding, and use of reserves and internal service funds. The remaining $2.7 million needed to complete the project would need to be identified from a new revenue source. The five year project plan for use of asphalt is as follows: Table C: Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation Fundine Plan: Asphalt The above proposed project funding plan requires $2.7 million in new revenues being identified to fund the final stage of the Almond Grove project. The $2.7 million funding gap could be accumulated from a variety of sources (as discussed in the long -range capital projects funding source report) including: • Parcel Tax • Increased Transient Occupancy Tax • Increased Sales Tax • User Utility Tax With the identified proposed funding plan, the Town would retain healthy fund balances totaling over $19.6 million dollars as illustrated below. 3 Rehabilitation Spring 7016 Spring 2017 Spring2018 Spring2019 Spriog2020 Cost Ford Balance FY 2015116 FY 2016rt7 FY2017/18 FY2018119 FY 2019/20 Broadway /Bachman $ 2,907,723 Existing Project Budget $ 3,696,000 $ 2,907,723 $ 2,907,723 Total Funds Available Tait/Bayview $ 3,774,210 Existing Project Budget $ 788,277 $ 788,277 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 1,500,000 GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 940,000 FY 2014/15 Year -Ed Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 545,933 Total Fonds Available $ 3,774,210 Glen Ridge /Almendra $ 2,948,356 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 632,700 $ 632,700 FY 2014/15 Year -Ed Excess $ 1,454,067 $ 861,731 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 2,020,178 $ 1,453,925 Total Funds Available 1 $ 2,948,356 Wilder/Bean $ 2,540,084 FY 2014/15 Year -Ed Excess $ 592,336 $ 592,336 Equipment Repiacernem $ 3,488,687 $ 590,435 Excess ERAF $ 330,000 $. 329,205 Compensated Absences (inantais 75% finding level) $ 2,281,656 $ 589,316 GFAR Fund Balance $ 438,792 $ 438,792 $ 2,540,084 Total Funds Available Massol(Nicholson $ 3,964,772 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 566,253 $ 566,253 Designated Productivity $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Special Studies $ 490,000 $ 153,000 Post Retirement Medical $ 400,000 S 400,000 New Revernte - .. S 2,745,519 Total Funds Available $ 3,964,772 Total Rehabilitation Cost $ 16,135,145 $16,135,145 The above proposed project funding plan requires $2.7 million in new revenues being identified to fund the final stage of the Almond Grove project. The $2.7 million funding gap could be accumulated from a variety of sources (as discussed in the long -range capital projects funding source report) including: • Parcel Tax • Increased Transient Occupancy Tax • Increased Sales Tax • User Utility Tax With the identified proposed funding plan, the Town would retain healthy fund balances totaling over $19.6 million dollars as illustrated below. 3 Table D: Almond Grove Street Rehabilitation: Asphalt - Use of Funds Cash on Hand Balance Use of Funds Balance Existing Project Budget $ 3,696,000 $ 3,696,000 $ Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 2,132,700 $ - Excess ERA $ 330,000 $ 329,205 $ 795 Reserves GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 940,000 $ GFAR Fund Balance $ 438,792 $ 438,792 $ FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 10,800,000 $ 2,020,178 $ 8,779,822 Post Retirement Medical $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - Reserve for Productivity & Special Studies $ 590,000 $ 253,000 $ 337,000 Compensated Absences (maintains 75 %fimdmglevel) $ 2,281,656 $ 589,316 $ 1,692,340 Open Space Reserve $ 562,000 $ - $ 562,000 Vasona Land Sale $ 411,245 $ - $ 41 1,245 Sustainability Initiatives $ 140,553 $ - $ 140,553 Internal Service Funds Equipment Replacement $ 3,488,687 $ 590,435 $ 2,898,252 ABAG Self Insurance $ 974,063 $ - $ 974,063 Worker's Comp Self Insurance $ 666,785 $ - $ 666,785 Management Information System $ 2,488,868 $ - $ 2,488,868 Stores $ 90,768 $ - $ 90,768 Vehicle Maintenance $ 331,190 $ - $ 331,190 Facilities Maintenance $ 178,765 $ - $ 178,765 Total $ 32,942,072 $13,389,626 1 $19,552,446 Under this scenario, staff recommends using only $590,000 from the equipment replacement fund (the unallocated amount currently existing in the fund), $400,000 from the Post Retirement Medical reserve and an additional $590,000 from the Compensated Absences reserve. Concrete The estimated project cost for use of concrete totals $18.9 million. The Town can support 75% of these costs with existing cash on hand, including use of existing project funds, reallocation of other capital project funding, and use of reserves and internal service funds. The five year project plan for use of concrete is as follows: Table E: Almond Grove Rehabilitation Schedule Funding Plan: Concrete The above proposed project funding requires $4.7 million in new revenues being identified to fund the final stage of the Almond Grove project. The $4.7 million funding gap could be accumulated from a variety of sources (as discussed in the long -range capital projects funding source report) including: • Parcel Tax • Increased Transient Occupancy Tax • Increased Sales Tax • User Utility Tax With the identified proposed funding plan, the Town would retain healthy fund balances totaling over $18.6 million dollars as illustrated below. 5 RehablOtation Spring 2016 Spring 2017 Spring 2018 Sprig 2019 Spring 2020 Cost Fund Balance FY 2015116 FY 2016/17 FY2017/10 FY 2018/19 FY 2019120 Broadway/Bachman $ 3,391,4 39 Existing Project Budiset $ 3,696,000 $ 3,391,439 $ 3,391,439 Total Funds Available TaitBayview $ 4,440,248 Existing Project Budget $ 304,561 $ 304,561 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 1,500,000 GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 940,000 FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) S 2,020,178 $ 195,687 Total Funds Available $ 4,440tg Glen Ridge /Alntendra $ 3,468,653 Capital Projects Reallocation $ 632,700 $ 632,700 FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 500,000 $ 500,000 GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 1,824,491 $ 1,824,491 GFAR Fwd Balance $ 438,792 $ 358,462 Special Studies $ 490,000 $ 153,000 $ 3,468,653 Total Funds Available Wilder /Bean $ 2,988,333 Equipment Replacement $ 3,488,687 $ 1,488,687 GFAR Fund Balance $ 80,330 $ 803330 Post - Retiree Medical $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Desipated Productivity $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Excess ERAF $ 330,000 $ 330,000 Compensated Absences S 2,281,656 S 5893316 72,988,333 Total Funds Available NlassoVNicholson $ 4,664,439 New Revew• $ 664,439 To Funds Available S 4,664,43 Total Rehahilitation Cost $ 18,953,112 $ 18,953,112 The above proposed project funding requires $4.7 million in new revenues being identified to fund the final stage of the Almond Grove project. The $4.7 million funding gap could be accumulated from a variety of sources (as discussed in the long -range capital projects funding source report) including: • Parcel Tax • Increased Transient Occupancy Tax • Increased Sales Tax • User Utility Tax With the identified proposed funding plan, the Town would retain healthy fund balances totaling over $18.6 million dollars as illustrated below. 5 Table F: Almond Grove Rehabilitation: Concrete — Use of Funds Cash On Hand Beginning Fund Balance Proposed Use of Funds Ending Fund Balance Existing Project Budget $ 3,696,000 $ 3,696,000 $ - Capital Projects Reallocation $ 2,132,700 $ 2,132,700 $ - Excess ERAF $ 330,000 $ 330,000 $ - Reserves GF Reserve for Capital $ 940,000 $ 940,000 $ - FY 2014/15 Year -End Excess $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - GF Reserve (Excess Above 25 %) $ 10,800,000 $ 2,020,178 $ 8,779,822 GEAR Fund Balance $ 438,792 $ 438,792 $ - Post Retirement Medical $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - Reserve for Productivity & Special Studies $ 590,000 $ 253,000 $ 337,000 Compensated Absences (maintains 75% funding level) $ 2,281,656 $ 589,316 $ 1,692,340 Open Space Reserve $ 562,000 $ - $ 562,000 Vasona Land Sale $ 411,245 $ - $ 411,245 Susta nability Initiatives $ 140,553 1 $ - $ 140,553 Internal Service Funds Equipment Replacement 3,488,687 $ 1,488,687 $ 2,000,000 ABAG Self Insurance $ 974,063 $ - $ 974,063 Worker's Comp Self Insurance $ 666,785 $ $ 666,785 Management Information System $ 2,488,868 $ - $ 2,488,868 Office Stores $ 90,768 $ - $ 90,768 Vehicle Maintenance $ 331,190 $ - $ 331,190 Facilities Maintenance $ 178,765 $ - $ 178,765 Total $ 32,942,072 $ 14,288,673 $ 18,653,399 Under this scenario, staff recommends reallocating approximately $1.5 million from the equipment replacement fund to the Almond Grove project. Of this amount, $590,000 is currently unallocated to replacement of specific equipment and would be appropriate to use for the almond grove project. The remaining $900,000 that is being recommended for reallocation is currently assigned to future replacement of existing Town owned equipment. Use of these funds will increase the Town's internal service expenditures in the future. Z a a W LU LU3 li rll� a 5a U Ma W NSPNZ i� s a AV znmo VINVS C S a IN = N N K rc 89 N Z cc N m z Z Z = of Z Z Z m A X � O C E Ff 19 w W W w n lQS W w W W l � a x Z X W W LL a W W p W W a C � � � Q W 3 � W Q W ZR W Z ca m W W = W w Z W Z Z W W Z Z N m AA r AV N01AI10 {� m a fn W a ^ E S N n Z Z � O N N W K 9 W K Z Z m m 1S NIdW M Z Z NSPNZ i� W w N N s a rypp NN ffVV = W a IN = w ' Z a N C Z cc N m Z W W £ c7 W w n W W N m A X � O C E Ff lQS W w W W l � a x Z X W w N N ATTACHMENT 5 W W rypp NN ffVV = W w ' Z w w w C fn W a E m C N n Z Z � O N N N _o AV "IOSSb" w w W w W W � X W W � i W W / W W Pv Ft�OGE WGLEN ATTACHMENT 5 Almond Grove Phase 1A - Recommended Tree Removals Address Recommended Reason for Removal Property Owner voiced Replacement Trees Tree Removals Objection to Removal 42 Broadway 2 Magnolias Unsuitable Street Tree Yes 2 Chinese Pistache trees Uplifted s/w 50 Broadway 2 Carolina Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Chinese Pistache trees Cherries Scarred /damaged trunk 62 Broadway 1 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Chinese Pistache trees Uplifted parkstrip 80 Broadway 1 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Chinese Pistache trees 15carred/damaged trunk 84 Broadway 2 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Chinese Pistache trees Uplifted s /w, 1 - Scarred /damaged trunk 100 S. Santa Cruz 3 Pear Dieseased - Blight No 3 Red Maple trees Uplifted s /w, cracks 47 Broadway 3 Magnolias Unsuitable Street Tree No 3 Red Maple trees Slight uplifted s/w 57 Broadway 1 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree No 1 Red Maple tree Diseased 69 Broadway 1 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Red Maple trees Scarred /damaged trunk 81 Broadway I Laurel Unsuitable Street Tree No 1 Red Maple trees Uplifted s/w 85 Broadway 2 Pear Dieseased - Blight No 2 Red Maple trees 89 Broadway 1 Ash Uplifted s /w, Damaging roadway No 2 Red Maple trees 301 N. Santa Cruz 2 Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Chinese Pistache trees 331 N. Santa Cruz 2 Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree No 3 Chinese Pistache trees Previously repaired s/w 222 Bachman 2 Privet Unsuitable Street Tree - Scarred /damaged trunk Yes 2 Chinese Pistache trees Previous repaired s /w, s/w is uplifted 300 Bachman 1 Buckeye Unsuitable Street Tree, too close to curb, No 1 Chinese Pistache tree Tripping hazard hard fruit 233 N. Santa Cruz 1 Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree No 1 Red Maple trees Cracks in s/w 209 Bachman 2 Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Red Maple trees Cracks in s/w 211 Bachman i Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Red Maple trees Scarred /damaged trunk 221 Bachman 1 Pear Diseased - Blight No 3 Red Maple trees 1 Magnolia Unsuitable Street Tree 303 Bachman 2 Pear Diseased - Blight No 3 Red Maple trees 1 Liquid Amber I Unsuitable Street Tree 307 Bachman 2 Liquid Amber Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Red Maple trees Uplifted, cracked s/w 321 Bachman 2 Liquid Amber Unsuitable Street Tree No 2 Red Maple trees Previous repaired s /w, s/w is uplifted 240 Massol 3 Liquid Amber Unsuitable Street Tree No 3 Red Maple trees Previous repaired s /w, s/w is uplifted 327 Bachman 1 Sycamore Remove Tree Blocking D/W Owner request General Notes: Liquid Ambers, Magnolias, Privets, Carolina Cherries and Laurels roots cause sidewalk damage and dropped fruits are a tripping hazard. Privets are also considered to be an invasive tree. Subject: FW: (From A.Doerner) FW: Town Staff Commited To Ruining Our'Hood From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhoodCayahoo.comj Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:07 AM To: Angelia On Wilder Subject: Town Staff Commited To Ruining Our'Hood The BIG meeting is this TUESDAY - SEPT 15 - PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWINGM! I met with Town Staff (PPW Morley /Petersen) late last week. They ARE IGNORING ALL RESIDENT COMMENTS AND PROPOSING THE SAME PLAN AS THEY HAD BEFORE! NARROWING THE STREETS TO WIDEN THE PLANTER STRIPS - IT ALMOST SOUNDED LIKE THEY MAY EVEN GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF ALL THE BUMP -OUTS - 21' INTERSECTIONS - WHO KNOWS ? ? ?? PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT IN MARCH; RECOMMENDING CONCRETE OR ASPHALT OVERLAY(VERY BAD) ! ! ! ! 100% REPLACEMENT OF CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND NOW THEY SAY - THE COST HAS GROWN TO $20MILLION ! ! ! (33% INCREASE IN 2 I ATTACHMENT 6 MONTHS!!!!!!) - BUT - NOT TO WORRY - THEY HAVE "FOUND THE FUNDS TO DO ALL STREETS....... Huh ? ?? THIS IS TOWN STAFF - THE COUNCIL HAS NOT HEARD ANY OF THIS!!!! THE AGENDA (INCLUDING STAFF REPORT) WILL BE POSTED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE TONIGHT!!!! WE ELECTED OUR COUNCIL TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS - OUR STAFF ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE THEM ALL THE UNBIASED INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS!!!! STAFF IS - ONCE AGAIN - ASKING FOR BLANK (SIGNED) CHECK!!!!! Please help "Save Our 'Hood" - the meeting, speak your 3mins, email council @losgatosca.gov!!! Angelia Doerner 211 Wilder Ave. Live Simply, Laugh Often z attend also To Mayor Jensen and Town Council Fm Bob Cowan, 222 Tait Ave Subj Town Council mtg Sept 15, 2015: Date Sept 11, 2015 Members Almond Grove Design and Funding Thank you for your effort to seek new means to fund the street reconstruction project for the Almond Grove and Broadway neighborhoods. I want to use this memo to recap my requests for the subject project. 1. Concrete is the most attractive and most cost effective material. Staff used a 50 year life cycle cost basis to compare concrete to asphalt. The 50 year comparison demonstrates the life cycle cost savings due to concrete. Actually, the existing concrete has been in place for approximately 100 years. This fact greatly increases the actual cost savings. 2. Equity issue regarding historic preservation improvement requirements In its effort to preserve the historic character of downtown neighborhoods, the Town imposed costly historic preservation design and material requirements on Almond Grove and Broadway residents seeking to improve their properties. The Town Council added a section to the Historic overlay ordinances to preserve the concrete streets. Removing that commitment due to cost is hypocritical. 3. Street trees There is no consistent park strip width in downtown residential neighborhoods. Street trees are a significant factor in determining residential character. Several neighbors prefer wide streets. However, I believe that a minimum park strip width of 3 feet is necessary to accommodate existing large trees and the planting of new trees that have a meaningful canopy. In the case of my block (200 block) of Tait, the expansion of the park strip from 2 feet to 3 feet would reduce the curb to curb roadway from approximately 40 feet to 38 feet. D�61Eod�D. SFP 11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Cl FPK DEPAPT": +F NT I),Av,A deli veYe-d @ i 0 :3Uavyl From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:33 AM To: Laurel Prevetti; Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Cc: Attorney Subject: For Inclusion in Friday 091115 Materials for Council 091515 Meeting I am curious - as no Staff Reports have yet been provided for Item 6 - Long -term Funding and Item 7 - Almond Grove Funding and Costs, obviously public comments cannot be made concerning such information in time for inclusion in the Council Friday packets - nor posted on the website on Friday for public -at -large perusal. Under the traditional procedures, no other public comments will be posted until the afternoon of the day of the Meeting - as Desk Items. In this case, might there be an additional "cut- off", e.g., 11:00am Monday whereby materials from the public will be posted to the website so that they are available to the public -at -large at least 24 hours prior to the meeting? Please advise - and Thank You. Angelia Doerner Live Simply, Laugh Often 1 From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:34 AM To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove Attachments: 091015 Asphalt Overlay.pdf Attached please find my comments concerning Asphalt Overlay as a viable option (or NOT) for the necessary work to be performed on the Almond Grove streets. Angelia Doerner Live Simply, Laugh Often Asphalt Overlay - "Say, WHAT ? ?!" I believe the best analogy I have heard regarding this issue was made by a neighbor of mine, Bob Cowan of Tait Ave. At the June 215 Council meeting he shared the following (paraphrashing): "In his early years of work experience, he worked for a developer. The first primary thing that they did was to check that the foundation was sound — it was critical that it be good — as to location, height, materials —just about everything.... Which is why he is so leery about this overlay option...... " Everyone I know is very "leery" — who better to know how many slabs on their parts of the block are obviously shattered even to the naked eye — requiring replacement? Yes! Lets: • Remove a vast number of concrete slabs, • May have to wait to deal with "who knows what" under there (like on Royce St), • Pour new concrete, • Grind /patch or do other remedial work on the remaining old slabs, • Then, pour asphalt all over the patched -up mess. And let's ask our Council to choose this alternative even though we will need to pay more $$ to Nichols for: • Figuring out how to accomplish this option and quantify the estimated magnitude of the effort outlined above, and • Redesign all the specs with all the new grades, elevations, etc., as well as • Redesign of curbs, gutters, etc., because the resulting pavement surface will almost be at the height of the existing curb, and • Uh oh — never thought about this until now - will I actually trip and fall by simply ,.exiting" my front gate (having to step UP X's onto the sidewalk)? What about drainage along my property line? Also, at the Apr 22'15 Planning Committee meeting reg the CIP, Town Staff mentioned (for the first time) "....it worked quite well on the part of N. Santa Cruz when it was done several years ago... ". Town Staff repeated this sentiment at their Sep 3'15 meeting with me. I asked if they knew anything about the state of the NSC concrete at that time. Neither did - but stated that the Town inspectors knew. I then informed them that in late July /early Aug I saw that the street was open for work in front of "Tommy's ". Naturally, I pulled off the road, grabbed my ever - present tape measure, and went out into the middle of the street to measure the depth of the concrete. I informed Town Staff that the concrete was a solid 10" on one side and over 11" on the other. I also informed them that Santa Cruz Ave used to be THE highway used to traverse "the Hill" (ergo, the "17 on /off ramps" at the South end) - therefore, it was built using appropriate CalTrans highway specifications to withstand THAT level of traffic. I also stated that I have no memory of seeing shattered, or even cracked, slabs before that work was done. I am hopeful they add this information to their thought process in recommending viable options for you to consider. Also, may I refresh your memory about what the Consultants had to say about this option in the 2011 Nichols report? The following is an excerpt from the "2011 Nichols Report" regarding their recommendation for use (rather, non -use) of an Overlay process on our Concrete streets (which have only gotten worse in the last 4 years). "This ... involves adding a conventional hot mix asphalt concrete or AC layer to an existing ... (concrete) pavement. It is used to correct or improve the structural capacity or functional requirements such as skid resistance and ride quality. The use of an AC overlay is usually more economic when the existing pavement is still in good to fair condition. ...... The thickness of the new surface will be dependent on the type, severity and extent of the pavement surface distresses, the ride quality and the required structural improvement necessary to accommodate the design traffic. The advantages are many — see Staff Report. However, the disadvantages are that it will potentially increase the pavement grade, and reflection cracking is expected. Therefore, this alternative is applicable for AC pavements but not PCC (Concrete)." In 2011, it appears our Consultants were offering some level of expertise. In addition, they did NOT provide ANY cost estimates, either by street, or in totality. SO, if they need to be paid more $$ to determine all the matters listed above — which information is critical to providing a Cost Estimate — how were the Cost Estimates for Overlay, presented in the 060215 Staff Report to Item 8, derived? Or the amounts presented to you at the Mar 3 '15 meeting? If you go back and look at footnotes (') and ( "') on those 030315 cost comparisons — you will find that none of these costs were included! How much credibility do you place on the Overlay Cost Estimates and related cost comparisons to Reconstruct w Concrete or Reconstruct w Asphalt? Surely not enough on which to make decisions! ?! I believe the best statement I have heard regarding this issue was made by our PPW Director at the 042215 Planning Committee meeting: "....All of the concrete streets are in significant need of reconstruction — not just repair— but full reconstruction....... Although other solutions have been done in other parts of the Town, the streets in AG are in need of reconstruction..." As I said earlier, everyone I know is very "leery" about this option! On behalf of the entire Town, I hope that each of you is very "leery" too! From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:34 AM To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove Attachments: 091015 Debunk Maint Costs.pdf Attached, please find an "analysis" of estimated maintenance costs for AG asphalt option. Staff has repeatedly reported to Council and Residents that over 50 years, the maintenance cost for concrete on the Almond Grove streets would be $5Mil and for asphalt would be $24Mil. These estimates were originally presented in the 2011 Nichols Report. Once Staff includes such amounts in their own reports to Council, they are implicitly taking ownership of those estimates. In the 2011 Nichols Report, page 31, the following life cycle cost assumptions were made: If Concrete - Costs include replacement of the joint sealant every seven (7) years If Asphalt - Costs are based on seven (7) year cycles... each cycle including generally two to three surface seals followed by one Asphalt Overlay! Please keep this in mind when reviewing the attached comparison between such estimates and what the Town's routine maintenance is for all other (non -AG) residential streets. Also, note that the Pavement Area used herein is from the 2011 Nichols Report which I have explained (in a separate communication reg Estimated Project Costs) to be apparently "somewhat overstated ". Angelia Doerner Live Simply, Laugh Often I Q L LL O v C Ci G L•�• L6 V) /Q V Q L U) C E N Y C w� W 0 O 0 z R 0 0 0 x 7 Q R i w C i w O D R OD C Q Q _ O M Z O U O s N N 3I > fC `• Z y N Z Q CO a y w 0 N N U) ° w N F 'r y J N O N d Q O W C OL O O > M W N N YaQ aZ�. LLI O O � 0 C .0 W R m T°n• W �L N ) N 7 0 m fA IA " si+U) C CC• N C E y E T ��_: y cw o d0, ay.y K d r y m 0 .@ V'a =_K = V A NY Qd'F aE 0 w CD V Q >Qw c w- WOZE 0- O X E 0 O ' c mLLO GE U m (n 0 E i w > O E �W � �o > m ° W Z Q O c a E 7 m Y N .. v ` a o � w ) o o CD M wo. d i °-> M M c c 0 O U U O C r a w a- J wC C w Z m0 mC N IO E o>E w 0JO' >M O .0 to 61",R o. O R Q O a y N W W 0 N `C r N w � L U y � o ° w w aR3 i 0 o n - mom Ln0 -0 . � O N O N C a R U w w' E' w Q Q >M.- `° ow > c o oto Y a o -NET w a C Co yO 0(7 o ai o C s ° c ;O c > 0 y E t L U Q Q U) (D 'A U) a) R C w C r a` O R T w 0 U c I U a w> w R w O O X w R w w U R ay+ w L W 3a 3 Tc 3 C - O CO v c,� - O R N V rn-o N a) 0 0 0 0 >. � C LL U)UcG U)C) Q-0 aw U LL U U y R w O N w N m o w C N C R R y w A d a' U) .y. E C • R w N } U O w r R N E C N'O E T w R 0 ' Ecm d >1 Rti N °y ` N w 97 E M M w Raa ct E 0;. R w C O w co of Q"O w a) 0) R 7 w '++ F R - w L0 c a R N 0 C 3 t 0° Ew 0 C4 O w 1-0. N O w VJ00 L R r PE U) 10 _v� C L C I C I r 10 0 O r 0 0 4) 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O a.� CL a) — R oU o� U �r of �� a) 0 a w m(� t `5L m� �U o o U O N w O l V w s R w "O C O O O g r Z d -OX w 1, E E E E R V C C~ C C m • O • Q • • • • -] From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 10:38 AM To: Council; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Subject: For Full Inclusion in Friday (091115) Council Materials - Item 7 Almond Grove Attachments: 091115 Project Costs.pdf Attached please find an overall analysis and related comments concerning Estimated AG Project Costs. This is in no way intended to represent a comprehensive analysis - only what can be derived from the limited data that has been presented to date. All amounts provided to Council by Staff have been derived, directly or indirectly, using the Nichols 2011 Report or by the Nichols Consultants. Unfortunately, there are apparent mistakes in that 2011 Report - which would /should have been identified and brought to the forefront before now - and NOT by me. But, such is my lot in life! For example: In the Street Detail on Page 20 of the Report, Bachman is stated as being from Santa Cruz to Glen Ridge - with an indicated length of 2,443LF - but that must be the length from Santa Cruz to the end (from Glen Ridge to the end is already asphalt). Est overstatement of pavement area is 1,143LF x 39'Width (according to Report) is 44,577SF. The Summary of Pavement Types on Page 5 is a tabulation of the individual streets' Pavement Areas from Page 20 - thereby apparently double- counting the intersections!! It appears this double- counting affects the Cost Estimates in Table 4.1 and, obviously, the street -by- street cost estimates presented in Table 4.3. I sincerely hope I am mistaken! I was unable (unwilling after a few attempts) to "reconcile ", with any level of certainty, the street -by- street 2011 Estimates to the Cost Estimates provided to Council by Staff for Bachman, Broadway - primarily as the data is incomplete for such review. Yet - they utilized the 2011 Street -by- Street Costs as a base for revised Total Project Costs presented to Council. The attached is an attempt to highlight critical information and raise questions that I feel are important to any decision - making process concerning a project of this nature and MAGNITUDE! For the sake of Our 'Hood - and Our Townes I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. My time from now until Tuesday is yours for the asking - you know how to reach me - SaveOurHood @Yahoo.com Thank you for caring.... Angelia Doerner Live Simply, Laugh Often N 0 a N N 3 u _N N C O Y N G1 3 Cf m m N .N m c Q 0 0 v m Cm G W LLJ o0c Q Z Z SO G J a V O N W H it i w a M � O N O C L N � o } � O O a o v 4J 3 O ►: it i w a M � O N O C L N � o } � O O a o v N Y C 0 a c Q N 7 full N d c m N _T m a N 0 U d m O E LU W d r 0 C d .O a d L r C E O V c v G N a A 0 y c A 0 0 n o y v 0 0 d Y V u A '� O L N O m y Z L a m C N r O C N A 0 u Du v E v d C d > u ,Yd, a C v E d 0 m o o u a z m c o v a z a c c 0 C 0 d L V r Q u -U m 0 r O cC O U u d O a` m to v V c O O �o0 d r O C C E C7 n A m v Q O O 0 0 0 o c u O e o n N v r L O N m .+ 0 0 O N O M vi O' rl N N O V 3 d O 0 O O O O O N N m m I� V1 Q O 0 0 0 0 O l0 lD N 00 t0 Y V O M l0 m O m �' N V tD O Vt M U1 VI O rl m m V l0 r1 N N `- N M N m N 0 M m N I� M m cr C ° eo ri o ri Vt N '•i m .n m -;T CL C d O N C j v .-1 � � a M N V M m v Lr E -o m 10 r V Vf VT lA to N VT W d d Z d v C p -0 C LL d d o o O m -Z �0 co E c Z O m rn w m m m n V Q cCY 3 v yd 3 0 0 E 0 o , r C N N O m V N .•y c ti m m o �n m m O O m .--� O c-I N l0 N d V1 V a--1 lD 06 m N N N 06 VT Vt 'VF VT LT VT Vf A 0 y c A 0 0 n o y v 0 0 d Y V u A '� O L N O m y Z L a m C N r O C N A 0 u Du v E v d C d > u ,Yd, a C v E d 0 m o o u a z m c o v a z a c c 0 C 0 d L V r Q u -U m 0 r O cC O U u d O a` m to v V c O O �o0 d r O C C E C7 n A m v Q O O 0 0 0 o c u O e o n N v r L O N m .+ 0 0 O N O M vi O' rl N N O V 3 d O 0 0 0 0 O O O O m m I� V1 Q O 0 0 0 0 O l0 lD N 00 t0 Y V O M l0 m O m m I, .--1 0 iD v d y VI O rl m m V l0 r1 N N `- N M N m N 0 M m N I� M m cr C n Y d m m Vt N N m .n m -;T CL C d O N C j v .-1 V .-1 M M N V M m v Lr E Y M u V O d Lr L 0 v Z d v C p -0 3 E m d LL y v 0 O A 0 y c A 0 0 n o y v 0 0 d Y V u A '� O L N O m y Z L a m C N r O C N A 0 u Du v E v d C d > u ,Yd, a C v E d 0 m o o u a z m c o v a z a c c 0 C 0 d L V r Q u -U m 0 r O cC O U u d O a` m to v V c O O �o0 d r O C C E C7 n A m v Q O O 0 0 0 o c u O e o n N v r L O N m .+ 0 0 O N O M vi O' rl N N O V 3 d O O O 0 0 O O O V N m V1 0 0 0 0 0 N � V 0 0 m O o a ry v io v N �n m d C o j ui ri oo o d v 00 m N m ems° L °a F a m m m m w m �o �o .n m 0 CL C d O m 0 v v V m M V1 N d M m v Q E M u V O d Lr L 0 v 3 w v C p -0 3 E m d y v 0 O M1• Z O L O 3 v yd 3 0 0 E 0 o , r o Q OV to 0 d O° O V •--I O a--I N N l0 d V1 V a--1 lD 06 m N N N 06 N Y n M m m M 00 m M N N N m V O N l0 M N m N VT VT Vf VT VT Vl V? l/T N} N VT VT A 0 y c A 0 0 n o y v 0 0 d Y V u A '� O L N O m y Z L a m C N r O C N A 0 u Du v E v d C d > u ,Yd, a C v E d 0 m o o u a z m c o v a z a c c 0 C 0 d L V r Q u -U m 0 r O cC O U u d O a` m to v V c O O �o0 d r O C C E C7 n A m v Q O O 0 0 0 o c u O e o n N v r L O N m .+ 0 0 O N O M vi O' rl N N O V 3 d 0 0 N E 0 O C 0 `w y o o � o v o 00 = c 3 Q Q d 1n v0 t � M1. � L d N � V O V O u C > V C d C o j L o d O N a ° F a 0 ` 0 3 0 9 d O N 0 v v E 3 d v c E � u V O LL L v 3 w v C p -0 3 E m y v 0 O M1• Z O O 3 v yd 3 0 0 E 0 o , r o Q Z 0 0 N E 0 O C 0 `w y o o � o v o 00 = c 3 Q Q d 1n H _i .O a C 0 N N 7 U N_ O N c N 3 a N N _T C a 0 U d Cm C W zi 00 a C O _T m C a v 3 y d W W N C O Z m rti Q v vl d A 2 v T 3 J= no z 0 ai CO W � a W {n Y O � y C L m W O j CL Y C � m L a co NN W v o w m V � C x N m L 0 Z U a a N N W CO m m a 0�0 a 1••I � L O > n• 0 Z r Z 0 a r a Q p Q W v � � u ? 0 c C O W m W O Y = Q n W u a W h 3 a ti !y 2 v to 3 W I1 a C A A H y0 V V C � A ro V C O H W F- F- Da 2 a a K N z z F W I U ; Zs a� U Z Z V F- O W , � C N W F 3 F Q a w � w 0 Q � 2 3 o a u a � W a w F A w C Z N N V J w � a A Z n v w v o a W 2 0 m A M v F- Z � a W W W ¢ 2 F- Q F- P: g Z W 2 w m N J � a sr x o >Q Fa- L W z C a L W U W z Z C 1 W 2 ME . Q z 0 D 0! h Z O H of _ O U H W W � K a W 4 F C W Y v O U U c a in N H d Y U 0 0 Z a Y W u O n U Z a 0 p Z W N W u 0 t7 U C � C w O x Q ~ a 2 H a 0 U 2 H Z O N V1 Q 2 A A v v 17 x C Y O U 0 Y > Rf L d r Y W d W F- 0 C ' 0 J C t •� s m s W G E a C O c Y L U � n L c N � C U W Y 0 O L C w W N t N C 0 CL 3 0 0 tw W C L I>A " v 0 L � Y yyj o mu U A v �v W t Y m C C W ' t 3 O N N L > Y c C a N E A o N /p E •� N y O O t U � N o c 4 W o t > 3 V N 3 � c i @ W � C I � Y 1 C v v H > _d Ri Q v E X 0 W Y E C '1I1 a 0 E Y N N C u 'L W f0 � E u > WI u C m RI m c N 0 r z ti ti 0 N W t m J_ v O N ao m c c 0 0 v 4 0 O 1y7 L O Q d Oc c O u N v C J> N L y O cG W c O CL E O c m 00 N 0 QJ m I m 1 Y 1 NIN I� HILl1 ,I N w -c o' c J7 v m E W ' iLL > u v � Ip t c s o = Y a c � C N . W C � rt Q o E Q 0 = o ao E E m N o y 3 c O O y N C 00 0 N W _ L y y L N Y In a CL E r c L � a :c W C V p Q 110 c a v m bD M W 0 3 W d CL r C 3 h L 0 0 C uy O O - C u a o N Q 7 1% Y Rt � c '0 Q CL W u I ti C' W � 0 N N i z a a o W > o Y tJ U T t7 Q C W n C L C W L W ry W Q r o i M Q y +' e F- + m N W L W y LL = y U N_ v O C = Q N z0 Y ° n Lo 0 14 3 m Vv' L m h O Z o 0 W c C 0 W H O O M 0 0 Z v sr E a W LAL v v C O m c 0 W 0 Y a 0 W C W y O p 0 N j E W N 0 Q a u N > W L L O• O u W y v n CL o v v c E E o W W V a° C L aL m m 0 m v o v C > L w H W C N + C > C >O O Ou C I� 'r, O O y tDal.+'0 N N N W �I. M 00 m C Q t3Wp} v r o mom 4)0 2' C O H �G1'C� 0 n O N O +n W W Q CO L u Y > h o r w M> f0 �m�^ iIi �O U U Y' E E c7a w 3L Y a E C Y Y W m W W O a-i tw C ti 1-1 W O N L L y C o a O o y o 0 f E v v Y i a C a a m w w w u i h o y ] C ' C N M O vii 04 O L w V j tJ C O o E u c L C o -0 v " c W CO — O y Cl Q g L O C C W N V N v C E rt1 7 y O ^ v W am+ U w C w W 3 y W O L C C _ t7 a uo u 0 m v A to v w 0 M d L Y N v LL C7 H C Z O N _T C Q N L f0 a v _UD c N v Y v C M O M v v Do m 0°D vi v + a 00 m w X N N N N A C C O N V Y_ vi C y O d N VI y C d Z O O ~ m� c E E o E V v vM v a °—' —> m m V U C N C 10 p `1 O` 00 9 Y W U Y m a N •N CI N C N OJ C 0 O o r E 9 v v o a w m `m v o w a d A 3 m o, m E 4) ' 'AY E'o- o 9 OU Y H O v 9 N c O d7 < Y �¢ v y c y E v E Z,- a > O d N O C y C a o a t o .D v C a v o d c ,2 ❑ v ¢ F c v c o 0 v ow a Q r ry C O N W 6 0 a z a = p 00 10 'O N O E v = a Op ut N ¢ 0 ` v 0 U v C C F U O F i 0 .0- , C C ❑ h w U U C N C u .Z N N (7 N M C7 ar c c o u u N A M M O o o m m ti m O w 0 0 v � O C O Y m r c 0 O O. N , c F ' O Y c v O. v vi v E O C1 C � 0 0 Y u Y U U � v 7 � E ° C l0 o ¢ v ¢ A Y O- O h f0 ¢ N d > 41 N h C O 01 t N Q% v u o E O ° C Ol O) L Y y� C v v pC U U G U 1 1 ❑ C O. p U CL v ❑t t � ❑ v � 'c n ti A. L ❑ VI >. U v M ❑ N ❑ Ot n � d at., N ❑ a c v v o �� `❑r ❑a cu x C fa N C n ❑ o ❑ Q o a u a °a L ❑ ❑ o 'o .° c a n o v v a v ° E ❑ a r 3 a o c 3 a c U c N n a °u v a v L V i c S O Q ❑ O ❑ -O N t y m U L N N O 0 a ate., O wt Ot _ a •c A C C > > U Q o n o d is v ° > ° v a Y 0i s @ Q O ^ O C U C N d f0 Q U O Q 3 C � ❑ h v. O ^ N N U Ol > L ❑ y O O u w d z O 0 o E 3 a E Vii OI {'� ❑ N N O 0 3 M O c m o >) 0 @) t0 p O m = C j ¢ O to W v m a c O T C a Y f0 LL 0) C O Z v r w v d N A N V V v v v v a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 w 0 w N 00 w m m N N 00 w M1 * 00 m m w r- a O O O m O lD O m O O w m N .i O tD tD O ti ao m Q > ai 06 m 00 N N N tC M V N m (D m m L H L z V1 N m M Vl N N O N m N 1� Q N rl Vf oD mt rl m N m rl N M tT Vf %P N 00 C O y y Z N O E v = a Op ut N ¢ 0 ` v 0 U v C C F U O F i 0 .0- , C C ❑ h w U U C N C u .Z N N (7 N M C7 ar c c o u u N A M M O o o m m ti m O w 0 0 v � O C O Y m r c 0 O O. N , c F ' O Y c v O. v vi v E O C1 C � 0 0 Y u Y U U � v 7 � E ° C l0 o ¢ v ¢ A Y O- O h f0 ¢ N d > 41 N h C O 01 t N Q% v u o E O ° C Ol O) L Y y� C v v pC U U G U 1 1 ❑ C O. p U CL v ❑t t � ❑ v � 'c n ti A. L ❑ VI >. U v M ❑ N ❑ Ot n � d at., N ❑ a c v v o �� `❑r ❑a cu x C fa N C n ❑ o ❑ Q o a u a °a L ❑ ❑ o 'o .° c a n o v v a v ° E ❑ a r 3 a o c 3 a c U c N n a °u v a v L V i c S O Q ❑ O ❑ -O N t y m U L N N O 0 a ate., O wt Ot _ a •c A C C > > U Q o n o d is v ° > ° v a Y 0i s @ Q O ^ O C U C N d f0 Q U O Q 3 C � ❑ h v. O ^ N N U Ol > L ❑ y O O u w d z O 0 o E 3 a E Vii OI {'� ❑ N N O 0 3 M O c m o >) 0 @) t0 p O m = C j ¢ O to W v m a c O T C a Y f0 LL 0) C O Z v r w v d N A N V a o N a 0 U C ° A CL ¢ ° m Q > Y E V C m � u N > N o v � v � o H U O n U N N O E v = a Op ut N ¢ 0 ` v 0 U v C C F U O F i 0 .0- , C C ❑ h w U U C N C u .Z N N (7 N M C7 ar c c o u u N A M M O o o m m ti m O w 0 0 v � O C O Y m r c 0 O O. N , c F ' O Y c v O. v vi v E O C1 C � 0 0 Y u Y U U � v 7 � E ° C l0 o ¢ v ¢ A Y O- O h f0 ¢ N d > 41 N h C O 01 t N Q% v u o E O ° C Ol O) L Y y� C v v pC U U G U 1 1 ❑ C O. p U CL v ❑t t � ❑ v � 'c n ti A. L ❑ VI >. U v M ❑ N ❑ Ot n � d at., N ❑ a c v v o �� `❑r ❑a cu x C fa N C n ❑ o ❑ Q o a u a °a L ❑ ❑ o 'o .° c a n o v v a v ° E ❑ a r 3 a o c 3 a c U c N n a °u v a v L V i c S O Q ❑ O ❑ -O N t y m U L N N O 0 a ate., O wt Ot _ a •c A C C > > U Q o n o d is v ° > ° v a Y 0i s @ Q O ^ O C U C N d f0 Q U O Q 3 C � ❑ h v. O ^ N N U Ol > L ❑ y O O u w d z O 0 o E 3 a E Vii OI {'� ❑ N N O 0 3 M O c m o >) 0 @) t0 p O m = C j ¢ O to W v m a c O T C a Y f0 LL 0) C O Z v r w v d N A N V VI a+ C O a c O �N N u N_ VI C O h d 3 cr C N T �o C Q 0 O U d m �o E N W U O D r N b m A N N N n Q °n .n vi o ° JI N y N EQi � n 0 n Q O i a s ¢ A N N V Z a f ff] J {yr W y a' � v 0 n Q O i a s ¢ a 0 V Z a W } N J i Q a a in Q v O Za n r Z Z U d> N L o F- U o n U 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 L O M �D T O 00 C; c 7 � j V Q1 N N N Ol C A ri r-i m H Z LL Y N N N N N N W } N J i Q a a in Q v O Za n r Z Z U d> N L o F- U o n U w a i M � O v O C L o } o � @ o v o un = Q � O v �n @ N C L � u Y H Y C v � U @ v @ a C aL+ N Y @ a 3 r v O O > L O U C a 0 G a u ° o w a i M � O v O C L o } o � @ o v o un = Q � O v �n