Council finally addresses watering, maintenance of landscape areas with 'little' and 'no' public benefit

Significant steps are finally underway to solve a knotty problem that was presented to the City Council five years ago regarding taxpayer-funded maintenance of at least 46 landscape areas that provide little, if any, benefit to the public.

The properties, as noted in a 68-page July 2010 report from then-Public Works Director Mark Stowell, include some for which the city does not have an easement to legally allow maintenance by the city and some with an easement but for which upkeep provides no public benefit.

Generally, Stowell's recommendation at the time was to stop watering and maintaining areas for which no easement existed and vacate areas for which easements existed and return the maintenance responsibility to the underlying property owners, among other solutions.

Stowell noted higher water costs and lack of probable landowner approval to boost funding for the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District – a recent vote had overwhelmingly opposed a small fee increase for arterial zones – were among reasons for curtailing water and upkeep.

Now, with water costs even higher and budgets for some landscape zones deeper in the red, council appears ready to take action on many of the properties, with 17 of 46 currently under consideration identified at a July 21 meeting as candidates for maintenance changes.

And action on the remaining 29 properties is expected to follow quickly under a schedule outlined by city officials, although city timelines often vary as meeting agendas fill up with dozens of other items.

The council approved a two-step process, with notices of intent to vacate easements mailed to property owners this week, and a public hearing placed on a Sept. 15 agenda for property owner and other public input before final council votes are taken.

The notice of intent advises property owners of a “potential change to the landscape maintenance of your property by the city's Landscape Maintenance Assessment District” due to “budget shortfalls and water use restrictions” and notes the public hearing date.

The letter, as presented at the July 21 meeting, also states: “Depending on the action taken by the City Council, specific fire prevention/protection measures may be required by the property owner going forward.”

Of the 46 identified areas, 38 are in landscape district zones and eight in non-district areas. Yearly savings could total $243,591, if the original recommendations are adopted, with one-time implementation costs estimated at $90,000.

A seven-page spreadsheet listing all 46 identified areas can be viewed on the city website by finding the agenda for the July 21 council meeting and scrolling to the fourth page of item 22.

Although the current matter is limited to the 46 areas originally identified in 2010 and reviewed this year by a council-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, council members asked staff to seek out other areas for possible future council action.