HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-25; City Council; 7099-6; Public Facilities Fees_--.
CI ’ OF CARLSBAD - A&:: BILL li n j 0 I!
iB# 70 w *6 TITLE: DEPT. HD.w
HTG. 3/25/86 PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE ClTYAm\J a
IEPT. CM CITY MGR.&
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and approve list of projects to be funded by Public Facilities Fees.
Direct City Attorney to prepare documents to raise Public Facilities
Fee from 2% to 2.8% of permit valuation.
EXPLANATION:
The current list of Public Facilities Fee projects was adopted in 1982. The list was based upon a 2% fee levied on building permit valuation.
Staff has reviewed and updated the list of projects which will be needed at buildout. Current costs are based upon 1986 prices.
Staff has recalculated population growth and now projects a buildout population of 137,000. The standards and costs for public facilities have been revised to reflect the 137,000 figure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The projects recommended by staff total $86,513,200.
This equates to a fee of 2.8% per permit valuation.
ATTACHMENTS:
ion. The attached reports provide information needed for Council act
1 - Memo from City Manager Financing Public Facilities 3/20/86
2 - List 1986 Public Facility Projects
3 - Memo from J. Hagaman on population projections 3/21/86
4 - Letter from Rick Engineering 3/14/86
MARCH 20, 1986
A.
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
FINANCING PUBLIC FACILITIES
The purpose of this report is to explain how we are proposing to use Council imposed development fees to raise funds for public facilities needed to serve new development.
Current Council policy is that developers install streets and other facilities which directly benefit the land being developed. Those improvements are itemized as "conditions" on development approvals.
PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PFMS)
To provide the money for future public facilities, which are of general public benefit installed by the City, the Council levies certain fees:
-- Public Facilities Fees (PFF) = 2% of the building permit
-- Park In Lieu Fee = $7002 per residential unit
-- Sewer Facilities Fee = $1000 per EDU.
Public Facilities funded are those specific projects listed in the adopted PFMS. The current list was adopted in 1982. Council is now reviewing an updated list.
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
In October 1986 Council retained a consultant to analyze traffic problems in the south portion of the city.
That report, (Barton-Aschman"Carlsbad Traffic Impact Fee Study") lists $30 million in traffic improvements which will be needed based on buildout traffic flows. The recommendation is that a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) be levied against all vacant property south of Poinsettia. The fee is based upon traffic generation factors and works out to about $1900 per single family unit. That report has not yet been finalized by the consultant. In April,: Council will be asked to approve the TIF, determine the projects to be built and adopt an ordinance imposing the fee.
I .
March 20, 1986 Page 2 Financing Public Facilities
BRIDGE AND TBOROFARE DISTRICT (BTD)
In January 1986, Council reviewed a report by Wildan Engineers which projected a $13 million cost to widen La Costa Avenue and three bridges over I-5 (La Costa, Poinsettia, Palomar). Council hired Neste, Brudin and Stone Engineers to create a Bridge and Thorofare District as provided in the Subdivision Map Act. Under this proceeding the cost of the road and bridge improvements are spread over a large area. In this case, all benefiting vacant land south of Cannon Road would be assessed. The BTD fee partially overlaps the TIF. A credit will be worked out to avoid any double payments.
The BTD allows Council to impose a fee as a condition of development after public hearing. It is paid at Building Permit.
FUNDING
Each of the above methods is proposed for funding public facilities. The criteria to decide which funding vehicle to use has not been clearly stated. For purposes of discussion the following criteria are suggested.
The PFF is used to fund large public facilities whichenefit all properties equally such as City Hall, Police Station, Community Parks. The fee is a % of building valuation.
The TIF is used to fund traffic improvements which are Er and above standard road improvements required as a condition of development. The fee is based upon traffic generation factors for each land use. The fee may be imposed by Council. There is no requirement for a majority approval by property owners.
The 'BTD fee is used to fund road projects which are overand above those required as a condition of develop- ment. The fee may be based upon traffic generation factors or acreage or other factors that spread the cost over an area. The BTD fee is imposed by Council after a hearing and may be,defeated by a majority.p.roteSt of property owners.
3
-
March 20, 1986 Page 3 Financing Public Facilities
STRATEGY
Council will be asked to approve the following action over the next 30 days.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Increase PFF to2.8%0 cover increased costs and added projects since 1982.
Adopt the TIF which will require all developers to pay at the time building permits are taken out.
Adopt BTD fees for La Costa Avenue and I-5 bridges and consider other road projects for BTD funding.
Establish policy that developers receive credit against any of the development fees if improvements budgeted to be funded by that fee are installed by the developer.
TIMING
The difficulty with any of the above fees is that money is only paid to the city as development occurs. If it is determined that certain projects must be built "up front" then a financing program must be worked out. Financing options could include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
City advances money and is reimbursed later (e.g. loans by the city to the BTD are authorized by law).
Developer advances money or constructs project and receives credit against future fees. (e.g. Lake Calavera Hills Sewer Plant)
Landowners form assessment district to finance improvements. (e.g. College Blvd-Koll)
Developer advances money or agrees to an assessment district and is reimbursed in future by City, other land owners or from developer fees. (e.g. Cannon proposal)
City borrows money and pays off the bonds from available funds.
A report explaining how city can borrow money to finance public facilities will be filed with Council in April.
I ,
March 20, 1986 Page 4 Financing Public Facilities
SUMMARY
This report is an overview of several overlapping programs. At Council meeting March 25, all of these issues will be discussed. What we need from Council on March 25th is:
1. Adopt list of projects to be funded by PFF -
2. Decide on source of funds for Cannon Road Assessment District -
3. Approve going ahead with TIF and BTD Programs. (We will be back in April with details)
March 20, 1986
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROJECTS
FIRE \ 1982
1) Station I-5 & Poinsettia $ 525,000 $ 350,000
2) Calavera Hills 559,000 425,000 3) Ranch0 Santa Fe 355,000 590,000 4) Public.Safety Center Phase III 1,961,OOO 1,950,000
TOTAL: $ 3‘400,000 $ 3‘315,000
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
5) Public Safety Center 6,500,OOO 3,400,000
6) City Hall -O- 4,000,000
TOTAL: $ 6,500,OOO $ 7,400,000
LIBRARY (137,000 population)
7) Additional 84,600 sq.ft. of library $. 6,300,OOO slojs~3,ooo
.TOTAL: $ 6,300,OOO
PARES (137,000 population)
i;
10) 11)
12) 13) 14) 15)
16) 17)
18)
Special Use Areas additional 10.7 acres Community Parks Alga Norte Calavera Hills S.W. Quadrant. N.E. Quadrant Cannon Lake Non-determined sites Macario Canyon Leo Carrillo Senior Citizen Center
$ 2,280,OOO 29,720,ooo w-s
B-B
B-B
B-s
w-s
B-B
9,700,000 1,000,000 -o.-
$ 367,500 B-B
3,531,ooo 2,270,OOO 4,225,OOO 4,225,OOO 649,900 4,225,OOO 14,000,000 2,000,000 l.,.6.7.9., 300
.TOTAL: ..:. $4.2 1.7.0.O:,.O~O:O. : ; . : :$.?7+72,,~700
-l-
G
h
. .
1982 1986
19) TRAFFIC SIGNALS (61 intersections,list attacbd)$ 5,800,OOO .$ ,4.,860,000
ARTERIAL STREETS
20) Tamarack (Adams to Highland) $ 1,875,OOO $ 175,000
21) Tamarack (I-5 to Carlsbad Blvd.) -O- 1,875,OOO
22) Carlsbad Blvd. median (Tamarack to Elm) 750,000 1,140,000
23) Palomar Airport (College to Paseo de1 Norte) 2,500,OOO 2,000,000
24) Palomar Airport (intersection w/Carlsbad Blvd) 1,375,ooo 3,000,000
25) Palomar Airport (railroad bridge widening) -O- 3,000,000
26) Palomar Airport (east of ECR, Airport) -O- 450,000
27) Palomar Airport (west of ECR, median half) 250,000 378,000
28) El Camino Real medians 1,000,000 1,500,000
29) Cannon Road (I-5 to Faraday) 3,750,ooo 3,128,OOO
30) Cannon Rd. Bridge (east of ECR) 250,000 378,000
31) Jefferson St. (I-5 to Marron) 1,000,000 1,500,000
32) Poinsettia Railroad Bridge widening -O- 900,000
33) Faraday (Cannon to Koll property) -O- 2,750,OOO
34) Miscellaneous 750,000 1,000,000
35) Carlsbad Blvd. (Tamarack to PAR, incl. bridge) 3,750,ooo -O-
TOTAL: $17,250,000 $23,174,000
-2-
7
PFF PRdJECTS TO CONSIDER ADDING:
1) Beach Parking $ 2,000,000
2) Highway 78 1,000,000
3) Olivenhain/Leucadia 5,870,OOO
4) San Marcos Bridge 5,000,000
TOTAL : $13,870,000
r
-3-
8
TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO BE FUNDED BY PFF:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Traffic Signals
Adams & Tamarack
Alga t El Fuerte
Arena1 & El Camino Real
Arena1 & Manzanita
Avenida Encinas & Cannon
Avenida Encinas & Carlsbad Blvd.
Camino Vida Roble & Palomar Airport Road
Cannon & Carlsbad Blvd.
Cannon & College
Cannon & El Camino Real
Cannon & Interstate 5
Cannon & Faraday
Cannon & Paseo de1 Norte
Carlsbad Blvd. & State Street
Carrillo b El Camino Real
Carrillo & El Fuerte
Carrillo & Melrose
College & Poinsettia
College & El Camino Real
College & Elm
College & Faraday
College & Palomar Airport Road
El Camino Real & Elm
El Camino Real & Faraday
El Camino Real & Kelly
El Camino Real & La Costa
El Camino Real & Mission Estancia
El Camino Real & Olivenhain upgrade
El Fuerte & Palomar Airport Road
Elm & Jefferson St.
Elm & Madison
Elm & Monroe
Estimated 1986 cost
80,000
85,000
85,000
60,000
60,000
65,000
60,000
65,000
90,000
90,000
120,000
65,000
65,000
60,000
85,000
80,000
65,000
65,000
90,000
65,000
65,000
65,000 *
85,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
65,000
125,000
85,000
80,000
80,000
85,000
100%
1’
1'
,I
II
II
II
II
‘9
II
50%
100% II
II
II
II
1’
II
II
II
II
II
‘1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
-l-
. ,
Traffic Signals Estimated 1986 cost
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Elm & Roosevelt
Elm & Tamarack
Grand & Jefferson St.
Grand & Roosevelt
Highland & Tamarack
I-5 & Tamarack
I-5 & Palomar Airport Rd.
I-5 & Poinsettia
Jefferson & Tamarack
Kelly & Palomar Airport Rd.
La Costa & Melrose
La Costa & Mission Estancia
Lagoon & Poinsettia
Faraday & Melrose
Ranch0 Santa Fe & Calle Barcelona
Manzanita & Poinsettia
Melrose & Palomar Airport Rd.
Melrose & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd.
Melrose & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. (two intersections)
$ 80,000
65,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
120,000
120,000
120,000
80,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
65,000
85,000
65,000
90,000
125,000
120,000
100%
II
II
II
II
50%
II
II
100%
II
11
Mission Estancia & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. (two intersections) 120,000 II
Olivenhain & Ranch0 Santa Fe Rd. 65,000 - 50%
Paseo de1 Norte & Poinsettia 65,000 100%
Elm Avenue (5 signals) State to Harding - interconnect 115,000 II
-2-
P
. .
h
OTHER INTERSECTIONS POSSIBLY REQUIRING SIGNALIZATI'ON:
Traffic Signals Estimated 1986 cost
56. Camino de las Ondas & Paseo de1 Norte $ 65,000 50%
57. Camino Vida Roble & Yarrow
58. Carlsbad Blvd. & Pine (ocean)
59. College & Lake Calaveras (entrance)
60. Elm & Highland
61. Garfield & Tamarack
65,000 II
85,000 11
65,000 II
65,000 II
65,000 II
$410,000
Totals:
Traffic Signals to be Funded by PFF $ 4,450,ooo
Other Intersections Possibly Requiring Signalization 410,000
Grand Total;: $ 4,860,OOO -
-3-
- .
h
ATTACHMENT 3
MARCH 21, 1986
TO: FRANK
FROM: James
PFF FORMULA
To determine
ALESHIRE, City Manager
C. Hagaman, Research/Analysis Group
the proper Public Facilities Fee to charge at the time of building permits, two facts must be determined. The first fact is the total cost of the public facilities to be funded by public facilities fees. The second fact to be established is the valua- tion of all structures (industrial, commercial, residential) to be built between now and the buildout of the adopted Land Use Plan of the City. The descriptive formula is as follows:
% of building permit valuation = Public Facilities Fee required
Total building permit valuation to buildout
The estimated valuation to buildout is $3,116,145,800 based on the following breakdown of future construction:
Estimated Units to Estimated Buildout Buildout Value Value
Detached Dwelling Units 10,500 $99,365 $1,043,332,500
Attached Dwelling Units 18,800 $56,960 $1,070,848,000
Industrial - 26,666,568 square feet to buildout at $26/square foot = $693,330,581
Commercial - 6,051,573 square feet to buildout at $5l/square foot = $308,630,223
Substituting the values for the Public Facilities Funds required and the valuation of future construction into the formula produces a 2.77% Public Facilities Fee, as indicated below:
2.77% % of building permit valuation = $86,513,200 (PFF funds required) $3,116,145,800 (buildout valuation)
Therefore, in order to fund $86,513,200 of projects with the Public Facilities Fee, a 2.77% fee is required.
w JCH:pgk
‘ . .‘.
A es
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY I %%&?%~~~;;
3088 PI0 PICO DR. . SUITE202 . CARLSBAD,CA 92008
P.O. 80X 1129 . PHONE . AREA CODE 619 l 729-4987
ATTACHMENT 4
A ‘e ’ ‘:B/c”
March 14, 1986
Mayor Mary Casler Council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: 1986 PUBLIC FACILITY FEE UPDATE
Dear Mayor Casler and Council Members:
On March 25th, the Council will reconsider adopting the Public Facility Fee update list, as presented by Staff. Your Staff will also be bringing back to you a more detailed analysis of the Cannon Road project as it relates to the amount being included in the Public Facility Fee list. I have two suggestions:
CANNON ROAD:
I agree, in concept, with the concern of Councilman Lewis that the City should take care of its fair share of Cannon and that the adjacent properties that may develop in the future should be responsible for their share. I have a suggestion that may allow the City to feel comfortable in proceeding with the Cannon Road project which is as follows:
The City Eng'i'neer mentioned that his estimate includes full-width improvements from the Kelly property westerly to I-5. I think it is important that the improvements of Cannon be kept on the Public Facility Fee list to assure that the connection between I-5 and the Kelly property is made and not that a portion of it is built and portions go unbuilt. A possible way to handle this concern would be for the City to build the center four lanes with no median as a Public Facility Fee improvement. Then, as the adjacent properties develop in the future, they could pick up the balance of the road including curb, gutter, median, sidewalk and the major utilities that are not needed as part of the initial construction. This way, the road connection could be made and the portion to be paid by the Public Facility Fees kept to a mini- mum. The adjacent property owners would then pay their share when their property is developed and the City would not have to deal with any reimbursements sometime inthe future. I have
. .
* . ‘ .
Mayor Mary Casler Council Members March 14, 1986 Page Two RE: PUBLIC FACILITY FEE UPDATE
included a cross-section of Cannon Road showing the improvement that could be built with Public Facility Fees and what future development would build.
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD:
I also suggested that, rather than spend over a million dollars for medians on Carlsbad Boulevard, some kind of a pedestrian prom- enade be built on the bluff from Cherry Street northerly to where the existing residential development occurs. This project could be tied in very nicely with the proposed seawall construction and is possibly the only area in Carlsbad that would accommodate such a pedestrian promenade at this point in time. The areas where the general public can have unrestricted views of the ocean are at a minimum and an enhancement of this area would provide maxi- mum benefit for the public. It would also be an opportunity to build a facility that would protect the sensitive bluff-top areas from future erosion'and damage that could threaten Carlsbad Boule- vard. As I suggested, the beach-area traffic consultant could possibly provide your staff with advice on the need for medians or traffic control in the center of Carlsbad Boulevard.
I urge the Council to consider these suggestions and adopt the Public Facility Fee update on March 25th.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Ladwig
RCL:kd-1
Enclosure
cc: Frank Aleshire, CITY OF Marty Orenyak, CITY OF CARLSBAZ Gene Donovan, CITY OF CARLSBAD
I
’ - . EXHIBIT
Cannon Road - Interstate - 5 to
West edge of Kelly Property showing
interim and ultimate improvement,
33’ a%’ a”, IS’*.
I
CANNON ROAD 4
/@’ MAI/OR AUZERIAL
+ 4’ ME STRPPED ML23/1/M
* &UfMAATE LWWWWIW CWPETED BYNALW7 b?EUEfOPER
NATURAL
f 6xwMo
IMEMM t5xw!v S1M mm J
UT/MATE bRAA sm m?4)
JN 8675 Q