Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-10; City Council; 7706; Assessment District FinancingCITY JP CARLSBAD — AGENDA >ILL (T) AR« 77^6 MTP, V10/84 nFPT CM TITLE: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FINANCING nFPT HD."^*^- CITYATTY * CITY MGR. <^P og oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council adopt a policy to consider assessment district financing for construction of arterial streets, major trunk sewers and water transmission lines. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City has received one petition and several inquiries from property owners to authorize assessment district financing of certain public improvements. Council policy to date has been to require developers to finance and construct all on-site improvements and off-site improvements necessary to serve the development. As master plan communities continue to develop under the present policy, we are finding that arterial streets are not being com- pleted in a timely manner. Current examples are Alga Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Palomar Airport Road, Cannon Road, and College Boulevard. If the City waits for adjacent developments to complete on-site segments of the arterial street system, it could be years before the arterials will be widened and linked together. The problem is one of timing and financing. Developers tend to install only those improvements needed to serve the houses being built. Often the completion of major streets and other key infrastructure improvements is delayed until the end of a multi-year project. La Costa is a good example. The City has a need to expedite the construction of major facil- ities. The developer has a need to delay major cash outlays. Under these circumstances the 1915 assessment district proceeding can benefit both the City and the developer by: 1. Constructing facilities up front and all at once. 2. Providing more favorable tax free financing. Adoption of a policy that would allow for the creation of an assessment district to finance and construct public improvements that have a city-wide benefit would allow the City Council an additional option to insure the timely installation of such improvements. Public improvements required to serve only the subdivision should continue to be financed and constructed by the developers. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a policy to authorize the use of assessment district financing on a case-by-case basis to construct: PAGE 2 of A.B. # ITEM EXPLANATION (CONTINUED) : 1. Arterial streets (identified in the wall map). 2. Major trunk sewers (to be identified upon completion of the sewer master plan) . 3. Water transmission lines (to be identified upon completion of water master plan and in consultation with CRMWD) . 4. Other improvements upon a finding by Council that there is a substantial public benefit from the construction. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of assessment district proceedings will be paid by benefiting properties. On a case-by-case basis the City Council may elect to contribute to the cost of improvements. Public Facility Fees or other City funds could be allocated to a project. EXHIBITS: 1. Request to form Calavera Hills Assessment District 2. Memo from ACM/City Engineer dated 2/28/84 3. Memo from ACM/City Engineer dated 3/14/84 4. Excerpt from PFMS report of 7/27/82 5. Sample policy on assessment districts (Riverside County) EXHIBIT 1 Calavera Hills Company One of the Cedric Sanders Companies February 24, 1984 Frank Aleshire, City Manager -^ City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Calavera Hills Assessment District<» Dear Frank: Enclosed herein please find the PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESS- MENT PROCEEDINGS which has been signed by the property owner and lenders of record. Attached to the Petition is a current title report showing the name of the owner of the parcels. We hereby request that the City Council consider the ap- proval of this Petition at the next most convenient meeting. We and our consultants will be happy to meet with you and any other members of the City and/or consulting team so that all parties can clearly understand the benefits of the project. We have had meetings with Mr. Brown (F. Mackenzie Brown, Inc.), bond counsel, and Mr. Tom Essen (Ervin Engineering), assessment engineer, to help in the initial structuring and orientation of the program. Mr. Bill Easterling (MuniciCorp) will be the underwriter. We are willing at this time to advance the necessary funds to cover the preliminary incidental expenses for both bond counsel and the assessment engineer. We will appreciate your advice as to when this matter will be on the agenda and/or when a staff meeting is desired. Yours very truly , CALAVERA Cedric E. S*anders CES:slw Enclosures cc: Mr. F. Mackenzie Brown (with enclosures) Executive Offices — 110 West C Street, Suite 1220, San Diego, California 92101 (619) 235-9180 TO: CITY OF CARLSBAD (hereinafter referred to as "City") PETITION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND WAIVER OF REQUIREMENTS OF DIVISION 4 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE UNDERSIGNED, constituting the property owner within the area of the property as shown on the plat attached to this Petition, which property will be subject to the assessment for the improvements hereinafter requested, hereby requests the institution of proceedings under the provisions of the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913", being Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, for the construction and/or acquisition of certain public works of improvement, together with appur- tenances and appurtenant work in connection therewith, generally described as follows: The construction of certain public improvements, together with utilities and appurtenances to provide facilities for CALAVERA HILLS, in what is known and designated as CALAVERA HILLS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. For further particulars, reference is made to the Exhibits attached hereto. THE UNDERSIGNED CONSENTS to other appurtenant work and acquisition that is, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City, necessary to properly effectuate said improvements, and hereby expressly waives the proceedings and all limitations under the "Special Assessment Investiga- tion, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931", being Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. THE UNDERSIGNED further requests the following: 1. That ERVIN ENGINEERING be appointed as ASSESSMENT ENGINEER; 2. That F. MACKENZIE BROWN be appointed as BOND COUNSEL. The UNDERSIGNED further agrees to make periodic deposits with the City to guarantee the payment of all fees to con- sultants, and it is further acknowledged that there will be no obligation on the City for the payment of any consult- ing services unless there is a successful confirmation of assessment and sale of bonds. The property owner hereby further agrees upon signing this Petition to dedicate all necessary rights-of-way or ease- ments, as determined necessary for said works of improve- ment, and all said dedication shall be accomplished before the ordering of the works of improvement for this assessment district. The property owner further requests that all efforts and attempts be made so that said proceedings and the Resolution of Intention can be adopted at the earliest time. This Petition may be signed in counterpart and constitutes one Petition and Waiver, and may be consolidated with simi- lar petitions and waivers for similar improvements herein mentioned. DATE OF SIGNING NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER AND STREET ADDRESS Cedric E. Sanders 110 West C Street Suite 1220 San Diego, CA 92101 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OR COUNTY TAX PARCEL NO. 167-100-37-00 167-100-38-00 167-100-45-00 167-100-49-00 167-100-52-00 168-040-14-00 168-040-18-00 168-040-21-00 168-040-22-00 168-040-23-00 168-050-27-00 208-101-05-00 SIGNATURE DESCRIPTION "OF 1915 ACT IMPROVEMENTS IN CALAVERA HILLS The following is a general word description of the proposed 1915 Act Improvements in Calavera Hills: COLLEGE BOULEVARDt Full width street improvements, for College Boulevard, within the City of Carlsbad, including grading, curbs, sidewalks, center medians, traffic signals, street lights, pavement, sewer mains, water mains, gas, electric, telephone conduits and appurtenances, cable television conduit, fire hydrants, landscape and storm drains beginning at the northerly boundary of the City of Carlsbad and the southerly boundary of the City of Oceanside, and travers- ing in a generally southerly direction approximately 7,000 feet to the easterly prolongation of the southerly boundary of Map 9935 as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. Excepted from the full width improvements is an 800 foot one half width section adjacent to Village D. TAMARACK AVENUE; One half width street improvements, for Tamarack Avenue, within the City of Carlsbad, including grading, curbs, sidewalks, land- scape, traffic signal at the intersection of Elm and Tamarack, street lights, pavement, gas and electric conduits, telephone conduits and appurtenances, cable television conduits, fire hy- drants and storm drains, beginning at the southerly boundary of Village E and traversing generally northerly along the westerly boundary of Villages E and K to the northwest corner of Village K. TAMARACK AVENUE AND TAPATIA AVENUE Full width street improvements, for Tamarack and Tapatia Avenues within the City of Carlsbad, including grading, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, traffic signal at the intersection of College and Tamarack and College and Tapatia, street lights, pavement, sewer mains, water mains, gas, electric, telephone and cable television conduits and appurtenances, fire hydrants, landscape and storm drains, beginning at the easterly boundary of Village P-l and traversing generally easterly, then northerly and finally wester- ly to the intersection of Tapatia and College Boulevard. ELM AVENUE; Full width street improvements for Elm Avenue within the City of Carlsbad, including grading, curbs, sidewalks, landscaping, traf- fic signals at the intersections of Elm and Glasgow and Elm and College, street lights, pavement, sewer mains, water mains, gas, electric, telephone and cable television conduits and appurte- nances, landscape, fire hydrants, storm drains, beginning at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and traversing generally easterly, approximately 1600 feet to the intersection of Elm and College Boulevard. Also including that portion of Elm Avenue beginning at the easterly prolongation of the easterly boundary of Village H traversing in a northwesterly direction approximately 600 feet to point in Elm Avenue approximately 200 feet northerly of the northerly extension of Victoria Avenue, at which point the improve- ment of Elm Avenue becomes half width. Said half width improve- ment continues northerly approximately 1500 feet. GLASGOW DRIVE AND EIRE AVENUE; Full width street improvements for Glasgow Drive and Eire Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, including grading, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, pavement, gas, electric, cable television, and telphone conduits and appurtenances, landscape, fire hydrants, storm drains, water mains, sewer mains beginning at the southerly boundary of Village E and traversing generally northerly through the intersection with Elm Avenue and then traversing generally northerly through the intersection with Tamarack Avenue and con- tinuing generally northerly until said Glasgow becomes Eire Ave- nue and continuing southwesterly to the intersection of Tamarack Avenue. LEP'CON WAY; Full width street improvements for LEP'CON Way in the City of Carlsbad with Villages S and T, as described for Glasgow Drive, beginning at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and LEP'CON and traversing southerly approximately 150 feet. LEISTER AVENUE; Full width street improvements for LEISTER AVENUE in the City of Carlsbad within Village X as described for Glasgow Drive, begin- ning at the Easterly boundary of Village X and traversing general- ly westerly approximately 900 feet. 7 SEWER PUMP STATIONS; Two sewer pump stations and appurtenances, one located in Village X and one located in the open space lot adjacent to Village X. OUTFALL SEWER; An 8" and 10" outfall sewer system beginning generally at the transition of Tapatia to Tamarack Avenues in Villages S and T and traversing southerly to the pump station in Village X, then generally westerly to the pump station in the open space lot in Village X, then traversing generally northwesterly to its terminus in Glasgow Avenue. The total length of the outfall sewer is approximately 8,000 feet. OFFSITE 16" WATER MAIN; A 16" water main commencing in College Avenue adjacent to Village U and traversing in a generally westerly direction approximately 1700 feet connecting to the existing 16" water main in the 20' easement shown on recorded Map 9933. <r CERTIFICATION I, CEDRIC E. SANDERS, do hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached Title Report is true and correct and title is vested in me as sole owner. DATED: January 11, 1984. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SSI COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) On January 11, 1984, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared CEDRIC E. SANDERS, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL SHARON WESTERN NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO COUNTY My comm. expires JAN 31, 1987 Notary Public in and for said County and State FEBRUARY 28, 1984 EXHIBIT 2 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Assistant City Manager/City Engineer ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS - 1915 ACT BONDS The Calavera Hills Company (Cedric Sanders) has proposed to install a significant portion of infrastructure needed to serve Lake Calavera Hills Master Plan Area by means of assessment district. Because they propose to use 1915 Act Bonds instead of 1911 Act Bonds, there are a number of policy issues that need to be looked at, the most significant of which is under what conditions is the city willing to pledge its credit rating in order to accommodate assessment district construction? The administrative provisions of the proposed assessment district are the same as those we have used before (1913 Act). The most significant difference is the type of bonds used to pay for the project. Previous projects that the city has been involved in have used 1911 Act Bonds. These are bonds where the lots are pledged as security for the improvements benefiting those lots. In conventional assessment districts where lots are normal sized residential lots, this results in bonds of reason- able denominations ($10,000 to $50,000). Because the land holdings of the Calavera Hills Company are so large, if they were to proceed with 1911 Act Bonds, the bonds would be very large and difficult to market. They are, therefore, proposing 1915 Act Bonds which are serial bonds issued in small denominations ($5,000, $10,000, etc.). The major financial difference between 1915 Bonds and 1911 Bonds is that if payment is missed on a 1915 Act Bond the city has pledged to make such payment and, having made such a payment, the city would then foreclose on those properties which have not made their payments. This creates some significant potential problems where, if we were to face another major economic downturn and property owners were not able to make their payments, the city would be in the position of foreclosing on individual homes. Other policy considerations relate to the types of facili- ties that should be allowed to be financed by an assess- ment district using 1915 Act Bonds. As a basic policy statement, staff's recommendation would be to consider such an arrangement only when the facilities have general city benefit. In the specific instance of the Calavera Hills Company proposal it would be our recommendation that the arterial street system could be determined to be of general city benefit if, as part of the project, the arterials were completed to make connection to areas City Manager February 28, 1984 Page 2 outside of the Master Plan Area. As proposed, such connections would be the extension of Tamarack Avenue to Elm Avenue and the westerly extension of Elm. We suggest that their proposal to construct College Avenue be expanded to include connections to existing streets or proposed projects outside the Master Plan Area. We would recommend against including collector roadways since these are of benefit only to the lots being developed and provide no significant benefit to the citywide circulation system. Similar logic should be applied to the proposed sewer outfall and waterline extensions proposed for inclusion in the district. If such facilities are only for the benefit of the Master Plan Area, since the developer is already under the obligation to provide these facilities as a condition of the Master Plan, it would be difficult to make the finding that inclusion of such facilities would be of general city benefit. Another related policy issue could involve a condition requiring that as the property is subdivided the obligations to bond payment be likewise subdivided so that potential home purchasers would know not only what their primary mortgage payments would be but what the assessment district payments they would assume when purchasing the property would be. We could avoid this problem by requiring that upon transfer of property from the developer to a purchaser, that property's obliga- tions as part of the assessment district be retired. I realize that some of the policy issues regarding the use of 1915 Act Bonds are very confusing. I think they should be fully discussed at both staff and council level before any commitment is made to proceed with the assessment district. All facilities proposed for inclusion in the district are presently the obligation of the developer. The developer seems to be the only beneficiary of such a district. I think it important that we reach some general policy positions regarding the use of 1915 Act Bonds since other large assessment districts such as Rancho Carillo and possibly even College Avenue assessment districts might propose to use such a funding mechanism. RONALD A. BECKMAN RAB:pab c: City Attorney Building Official Land Use Planning Manager Attachjment 1 " ril P IIIi;*9*^s F.; i f" f^i !,. $?t sl> 1 f •"r, -,) ;i*P •G; pr':'"? :N3"^;' A:1 -. inV J 'afH 5 '" ^ /^•vill '1 * Sif KrP Ti-si!' -s*. •- + '-' i i .- ,S j 'U s flIP'••- ^j : *s! | \^S '--. i* I 'd (O 01§ 31 o§ H>'s EXHIBIT 3 MARCH 14, 1984 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Assistant City Manager/City Engineer ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS - 1915 ACT BONDS The City has received a formal petition to form an assessment district for the construction of City facilities using 1915 Act Bonds as the financing tool. This is the first time that the City has considered using 1915 Act Bonds. There are a number of differences between 1915 Act Bonds and 1911 Act Bonds which the City has customarily used for a number of years. A review of A Summary and Comparison of California Special Assessment Acts, prepared by Miles RTBroxton Associ ates, will be very helpful (copies attached). It is likely that more developers will request that the City form assessment districts using 1915 Act Bonds. The purpose of the upcoming workshop of March 26, 1984 is so Council can understand the issues involved when using 1915 Act Bonds and set policies and establish guidelines under which such assessment districts would be considered. The first request for an assessment district was submitted by the Calavera Hills Company. They propose to construct arterial streets, collector streets, sewer trunk lines and a water transmission line. Other potential assessment districts which might propose to use 1915 Act bond funding would include the College/Cannon Assessment District (Barnes). Carlsbad Research Center (Koll), Kelly Ranch (Cal Communities), the Hunt Brothers property, Carrillo Ranch property, Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and 1-5, Rancho Santa Fe Road, and the Southers Property just south of Hwy 78 Specific proposals have not been submitted on all these projects, but it seems reasonable to assure that they would include at least all of the backbone facilities including arterial roadways, sewer and water trunk lines. page -2- Why is the City so interested in setting policies regarding the use of 1915 Act Bonds when we have customarily, and without question, frequently used 1911 Act Bonds? There are a number of technical differences to the two types of bonds. These technical differences will be discussed in more detail later in the memo. The most significant difference is that with 1915 Act Bonds the City is involved in the collection and payment of the bonds throughout the entire life of the assessment district, the City is responsible for collecting necessary funds from the County Tax Collector and for making the regular payments to the bond holders. The City's credit rating affects the value of the bonds and the City would be responsible for foreclosure and sale of property where payments are delinquent. Why should be City be involved in a financing program for improvements that are required to be constructed by a developer? The policy that seems to be most consistently used by local agencies is that the agency will be involved in 1915 Act Bond financing only if the improvements proposed are of general benefit (i.e. of benefit to more than the developer requesting the district). Examples of general benefit that have been used elsewhere are lower interest rates, therefore, potentially lower housing costs, one time rather than piecemeal installation of major facilities projects and completing missing links in the circulation system or transmission systems serving the general area. The basic policy issue facing Carlsbad is whether or not to allow the use of assessment districts for installation of subdivision improvements using 1915 Act Bonds. If the City does allow the use of assessment districts as a financing mechanism for installation of subdivision improvements, the questions that follow are: What facilities are to be allowed, who selects the team members (bond counsel, underwriter, assessment engineer, and design engineer) and shall the benefits of the assessment district be used strictly as a construction loan or shall they be passed through to the ultimate homeowner? Before policy decisions are made, perhaps we should understand why 1915 Act Bonds are being requested and what their positive and negative aspects are. The primary attractiveness of bond- act financing is that the interest rates on tax-exempt bonds range from 9-9 1/2%, while the interest rates on conventional construction loans will range from 2-3 points above prime interest rates. At this point in time, 'AAA1 rated municipal bonds are going for 9.4% interest and the prime interest rate is 11.5%. Assessment districts using 1915 Act Bonds are generally more attractive when the ownership of lands within the district is comprised of multiple owners rather than a single owner. An attractive feature of 1915 Act Bonds is that payment is collected as part of the tax bill, a generally more reliable source. 1915 Act Bonds also have a longer life. Page -3- They can be issued for terms of 40 years, although the average is from 20-25 years. They are also serial bonds issued in relatively small denominations ($1000-$5000) as opposed to 1911 Act Bonds which are issued in the total amount of assessment against each parcel of land. A 1911 Act Bond issued against a parcel of land with large acreage could be $100,000 or higher, and be difficult to market. Review of policies used by other agencies shows that the most common practice is that assessment districts are used to finance subdivision improvements for commercial and industrial subdivisions, and that the improvements to be financed must become the property of, and be maintained by, the agency authorizing the assessment district. Residential subdivision improvements are authorized in using assessment district proceedings only if significant public benefit is derived. No residential in-tract improvements are normally allowed. Street improvements are limited to what we would classify as secondary arterial or larger. Drainage facilities are limited to those shown on the Drainage Master Plan. Similarly, water and sewer lines are allowed if they are not classified as in-tract requirements. Administrative practices common to other agencies include the requirements that assessment districts would be considered only upon submission of a petition signed by 60% or more of affected property owners. The agency selects the assessment engineer, bond counsel and underwriter. All costs bond of setting up the assesment distirct are paid for in advance by the petitioner. The agency decides whether to use 1911 or 1915 Act Bonds. The post improvement value of the land within the assessment district must range from 3 to 4 times the value of the bonded indebtedness of the district. Petitions submitted by groups of landowners must designate a spokesperson for that group. The spokesperson is responsible for maintaining contact with the agency and for disseminating information to the property owners. Home buyers within a subdivision benefiting from an assessment district have the choice of requiring the lien created by the district to be paid off as part of the purchase price or accepting the lien and its lower interest rate. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, the policy issues facing Council are whether or not to allow subdivision improvements by assessment districts, whether to allow 1915 Act Bond financing, what facilities shall be allowed to be included within the assessment district, who selects assessment engineer, design engineer, bond counsel and underwriter, and shall assessment district financing be limited to construction financing or can the ultimate home buyer acquire the benefits? Page -4- Staff's recommendati allowed as a financi subject to City poli improvements and the allowed if only sign matter of determinat reflect significant the construction of moderate income hous engineer, bond couns subdivider's design have the ability to district lien or to on is that assessment districts should be ng mechanism for subdivision improvements cy guidelines. Residential subdivision use of 1915 Act Bond financing should be ificant public benefit is derived. This is a ion on a case-by-case basis, but would normally additions to the City's circulation element, trunk pipelines or the provision of low or ing. The City should pick the assessment el and underwriter. The use of the engineer is acceptable. The home buyer should choose whether to accept the assessment have it retired as part of his escrow. RONALD A. BECKMAN RAB:mmt attachment * EXHIBIT 4-., .,,.— —..—I,, .., ,_, I ARTERIALS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS | The City's policy relative to PFF and the financing of arterials and I traffic signals is contained in a December 4, 1980 memorandum from f the City Engineer to the Assistant City Manager/Developmenta 1 I Services. Arterials to be funded by PFF are as follows: Hap No Road 1 Tamarack Avenue 2 Carlsbad Boulevard 3 Carlsbad Boulevard 4 Palomar Airport Road 5 Intersection 6 Palomar Airport Road 7 El Camino Real 8 Cannon Road 9 Cannon Road 10 Jefferson Street 11 Miscellaneous Sect ion 1-5to Sunnyhill Tamarack to Elm Tamarack Avenue to Palomar Airport Road, including bridge West of airport to 1-5 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad Boulevard West of El Canino Road Medi ans 1-5 to El Camino Real East of El Camino Real 1-5 to Monroe Street Est imate Cost , 1982 $ 1,875,000 750,000 3,750,000 2,500,000 and 1,375,000 250,000 1,000,000 3,750,000 250,000 1 ,000,000 750,000 Total $17,250,000 The City has developed a list of 86 traffic signals plus eleven unidentified signals which will be funded by PFF. All signals not on the list will be constructed by developers as conditions of development. Basically the signals that will be funded are at the intersections of General Plan arterials with other arterials plus the intersections of local or arterial streets every 2600 feet with prime arterials and every 1300 feet with major arterials. Signals to be funded by PFF are as follows: (See Plate #4 for locations). OCEANSIDE j£NA VISTA ' SCALE CITY OF CARLSBAD PALQMAR V ..-" y?. f^^^^H/•^ *vifxSKyf& BATIQU170S LAGOO.N 1 Arterials To Be Funded By PFF PLATE #3 AB« ^0°! °j MTG 7/27/82 DEPT.R/A Grouo UILEj PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEPT. HoTAE CITY ATTY^ CITY MGR._/ U 1 -V^ 0UJ §ceo_O_ u ou RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council adopt the Public Facilities Management System (PFMS) as a policy to monitor demand for public facilities that results from new development. City Council establish by policy seven public facilities - water, sewer, parks, library, circulation and administrative facilities as those to be monitored by PFMS. City Council establish by policy the service level standards as outlined in the attached staff report. ITEM EXPLANATION: The Public Facilities Management System has been designed to monitor the impact of new development on the demand for public facilities. The need for the PFMS was expressed as a recommendation in the Interim Growth Management Report by Sedway/Cooke. The PFMS will provide decision makers an informational link through periodic reports between the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Council Goals and Objectives, and the Operating Budget. The PFMS utilizes mostly existing information sources and decision making processes. The major components of the system are: 1. The CIP which is structured to allow planning for the provision of facilities in advance of need. 2. A monitoring function which continually assesses the impact of new development on the demand for public facilities. 3. Funding - the system will continually analyze available funding sources in relation to needed services and fac- ilities. \ 4. Standards and Benchmarks - the system establishes specific minimum levels of service for identified facilities (e.g. parks: 2 acres per 1000 population). FISCAL IMPACT: It is estimated that the proposed system will require 20 (person) weeks per year to operate. At an average charge of $20 per hour per staff person, the cost :o operate the system is estimated to be $16,000 per year. The majority of the expense of operating the system is related to the manual accounting of the moni- :oring function. If the accounting process were automated, the cost of operating PFMS could be greatly reduced. EXHIBITS: a. The PFMS staff report (previously distributed). EXHIB-IT 5 ATTACHMENT I POLICY FOR USE OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS FINANCING FOR INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ON LAND WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY (1) The County shall allow the development of commercial or industrial property under the provisions of this policy and where the public facilities of a residential development represents, In the County's opinion, a significant public benefit this will also be considered and acted upon. (Residential, in-tract improvements are generally not considered eligible for this financing.) (2) Facilities which may be considered shall be public facilities in dedicated rights-of-way or easements, and for which a public agency has on-going responsibility to maintain and operate those facilities constructed under this policy. The types of facilities to be financed are: (a) Streets: streets shall not be less than Collector Streets (Standard 103). (b) Drainage facilities: major collector facilities as set forth in County adopted Flood Control Master Drainage Plans. (c) Public utilities may be Included which are appurtenant and incidental to streets; or which otherwise provide significant public benefit if not appurtenant or incidental to streets. (Residential, in-tract improvements are generally not eligible, as well as, improvements which solely impact a public utility which is not part of existing County service in unincorporated areas.) (3) Project property value to lien ratio shall not be less than four-to-one after the installation of the improvements to be financed. (Determined by M.A.I, appraisal.) (4) Projects shall be at the stage where all the above criteria can be adequately assessed. (5) Assessment districts shall have the concurrence of the effected area's property owners representing not less than 60 percent, by area, of the land proposed to be assessed. (6) The County shall select the assessment engineer and bond counsel for any proposed assessment district which meets the above criteria. •e/ (7) The underwriter, and If required the financial consultant, shall be selected by the County with the concurrence of the applicant. (8) All fees and costs prior to award of contract shall be advanced by proponents of the assessment district. (9) Improvements may be constructed in accordance with provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; the final choice of which shall be by the County. (10) The assessment district bonds may be issued in accordance with Improvement Act of 1911 or the Improvement Bond Act of 1915; the final choice of which shall' be the County's as based on the information supplied during the processing of the district. (11) Generally, there shall be no overlapping bond assessments or liens on the proposed special assessment district at the time assessments are to be affirmed by the County. I 1ini m •*»•o co o 0°i. inex inCXOIo uo«t- I.•— o. • .S •o c11U. Oltx-uo.<O VIin vi•^ 01 •°84- *.« ex \S £ 4 »-» 1 £g£ 5O >- fe!UJOS"as? <n m. > f~4^ CK•«- O JS.: 3 10 OWO ••-C ^^ • Ol O*» E «ex EOl O S.O U oOl«*.x«-01 "O£5l3 ^~ O«/> X CO •04J 01 To!.5 S£S 3^ T*•* «C co»-• • ••o*->LU 1—Q. •—«/> _l eg •g «_> CO»-• 1«-. _J £§Oex,•— i _l CCo. o ^oce z 2G «/> «<g5 g"-UJ 0ooco. 1CM1 «A41 V tc u c0 CO••-•O Ol t*J 01 O>r- 4O 1 * 4B >u u c«r- 10 -0 01r- 0. cO.E «o >»»cx-^- c 01« <n <o *r- .. *•** >1- J3 C O»OI O 01 C *.oi E-^4-0 4->TIr-& 10 V. 3 10•*- E «o«— *>> cxu cOl in Ol c Oice-r- -of e T inat §?, ^ > OT> •«->t <o c 013 O. 101- «U into E O E•O -r- in(.•a *> in vi•O in C Ol Ole-o 01 ei •*-*—<O -r- E CJ 3o o»- *• c-ov- o: -r- i. a> cu4J 10 O>JC T> O O O. a Ui--u c oi in•a -o oo c jc t--aCD O U >,^- C•r- T- i/jo 10 ««- *> fZ C 3O IO 2 3 CX4Ju o uia£f- -o t. Ol»-»-*> OI-«-ai ex a. -a jc o•— O. 01 01 4J i-cj 10 ca «J o a ^j\ 1 1 •— •1 v ' i4J 'U U C 5"*> "OT> in t.Ol-r- 10^-Q 0 ^" .C0V- «>S «t-_ o0 E•»- VI J<** in i. •m ai 01 -ou in r— -r--- •« 0 10i— «X o.CX JCex j. *> ai«t 0-^ 01V- i H- 1 L ten i CO1 1f%.1 " 1to1 otu IO <Oc-o ^00X1•o u cC «O 0 * e*» 01-^ «C Ol >v- C U 01i- O **"O«••- «o oOl 4J Ojc u ai«*£&— y _ sr- 1. JC JCja « 4-* o»3 0-^-r-Q. CO X3C .r M — VI •O *» 4-> »-C C TJ-«- Oo a><*- 10 E«t-J3 E O O J3 O C3 CC 3 O•o o c VI-DV- C 0 0 «-4-» •OT3 t- *> 10 «O 4J • C 0 EL ^ M3 4-1 Ol CO £•air- E u E Ooi 10 C f -u o t- ••C O I- I- «-»^- Cl 1- 4-1 10 1.Ol S. VI CX C Oc «o t- -^- a> o •«-O) CX O"O O-r-S «»- 4J VI*j >>io LC CX >, C tt) X> O •f t- oi > c in 4Jr- •> E t- Ol-r- <JviOlinin3E>'^v>i/itnincs>E=l-l-Ol C Ol Ol O Ol *>«n3Oin*OUCXinviOoiinc:o>3Br-«XUCiO<Oi-t/>-0r 4-» inC 01 Ol «- T-E Ol O•P-j- C«- 4J ai10 o enex <oOl JCO *J "O^— c>>i «OlS in inai ••-»3 *-> C VI IO Olc E•O-^ 4->•o t-•o *- «o«9 O CXo o a>oe uxi t 4->>— O E C Ol v- O <-«Ol in 4>* &• v •E c <a v- 10 -ov» 3 E C oiin O t Ol O T3 O> 0 O Cl f 01in *t- *^* 4*^ OlVI ^3 *^- C•o c c j=-ao o *»-o aiin J3 •*" < J34-» VI *>— 0 T> C X01 Cf- *> « •i- « onu • EOl 0»-»- 4Jin t- J3 I. C viOl 4-> IO 4>>, CJ C in O -r-4-> c Of f m Cf f tlr— O3 CTV<-> ex exO C OV- CX oCJ OJ ti O IO Tl