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