HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-12; City Council; 16544; City-Wide Trails Program - FinancingCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL u
,B# /b,>-vy
‘EPT. FIN
ITG. 02/12/02
DEPT. HD. /+ TITLE: CITYWIDE TRAILS PROGRAM -
FINANCING
lECOMMENDED ACTION:
Select a financing option for the Citywide Trails Program.
TEM EXPLANATION:
On November 13, 2001, the City Council accepted the Citywide Trails Program report.
This report provided an overview of the Citywide Trails Program and proposed a new
framework for Carlsbad’s Trails Program, including: program design concepts and
standards; liability concerns; financing; and staffs recommended steps for
implementation. This Citywide Trails Program integrates portions of earlier trails work
efforts with a new framework that more aptly addresses the circumstances, wants and
needs of the community of Carlsbad today. The report is on file with the City Clerk as
well as available for review on the City’s website at www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us.
At the November 13th meeting, Council deferred any action on the financing primarily
due to questions on the interpretation of Proposition H, Carlsbad’s expenditure limitation,
and its applicability to the Trails Program. The main question was whether or not a vote
would be required in order for Council to spend an amount greater than $1 million in total
on the trails program from the General Fund. This determination rests on what is
considered a “project” for purposes of applying the limit.
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 1.24, Section 030, states:
‘The city shall make no real property acquisition and/or no improvement to
real property the cost of which exceeds one million dollars in city funds,
unless the proposed acquisition and/or improvement project and the cost
in city funds is first placed upon the ballot and approved by a majority of
the voters voting thereon at an election. A project may not be separated
into parts orphases so as to avoid the effects of this chapter.”
Section 1.24.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides that:
‘7he city council may adopt reasonable guidelines to implement this
chapter following notice and public hearing.” (Ord. 1255 fj 1 [part], 1982)
In 1983, a committee was formed to draft guidelines to assist in the implementation of
this code section and those guidelines were adopted by the City Council (see Exhibit 1).
Guideline 4 addresses the vote required for phased projects and it states, in part:
“...There are a number of objective reasons for separating a project into
phases including available funding, environmental features, coordination
with surrounding developments, market conditions, the need to match 1
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1!(0!5q
project phasing with population increases, or citizen demand. Unless it is
reasonably apparent that a project is being "split" to avoid a vote,
legitimate phasing of a project should be allowed.. ..'I
The guidelines go on to specify that prior to approving part of a project which, in total,
would cost more than $1 million in General funds, the Council should hold a public
meeting including specific findings on why the project is being phased and whether a vote
is required. The guidelines also specify that any legal challenge to the decision of the
Council must be brought within 30 days after Council's determination, otherwise the
challenge would be barred.
Analvsis The Trails Program is a system of numerous trails that will be built or dedicated over a
period of years. Each trail link is useful, by itself, and does not need the other parts of
the system in order to be of benefit to the public. It is similar in nature to the Circulation
System or the Parks System in that it is made up of various pieces to be built over time,
which eventually will be linked to create a total citywide system. The guidelines have
determined that the Circulation and the Parks Systems may be broken into independent
segments with each segment being considered a separate, distinct, capital project. The
same interpretation of the guidelines would apply to the Trails System.
The Trails System is phased for a number of reasons including:
> Certain parts of the trails will need to be coordinated with the construction of
surrounding developments to insure that the links are made between current trail
segments and new trail segments > Some easements that may be needed to complete links may take years to acquire > Since a significant portion of the City is yet to be developed, future needs for trail
> Circulation element trails on current roads will need to be coordinated with future
linkages are unknown
road reconstruction when funding is available
Thus, the Trails System is being constructed in segments out of necessity, rather than
artificially to avoid a vote. Any particular section of the trail system costing more than $1
million may require a vote of the taxpayers if there is no separate funding source limiting
the General Fund contribution to less than $1 million.
Not all of the segments for the future Trails System can be determined at this time. Thus,
if the General Fund is the funding alternative selected for the Trails System, Council will
need to review in a public hearing each segment as it is designated. The review will
need to determine whether the segmenting is necessary and whether a vote of the
taxpayers will be required.
Options
The Citwide Trails Proaram reDort Dresented two options for financing the costs of the . ." 1 ~~ ~~~ system. One was the General iund as just discussed. The second was the creation of a
Citywide Mello-Roos District.
If Council prefers to use the General Fund to finance both the acquisitionlconstruction
and the maintenance of the Trails System, then staff will include the costs for the
"
2
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. L, gq
maintenance of the trails and any identified capital work on particular segments into the
City’s operating budget and Capital Improvement Program for the upcoming budget year
(fiscal year 2002-03).
If Council would prefer to create a citywide Mello-Roos District, then Council should
direct staff to return with the documents to begin that process.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, this
report regarding trail funding alternatives is exempt from the requirements of the Act
because it is a Feasibility and Planning Study. If the City Council directs staff to proceed
with the Citywide Trails Program, the appropriate level of environmental documentation
will be prepared for certification.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City currently has approximately 14 miles of trails already developed, not including
sidewalks and bike paths. Approximately 10 of these existing trails are open to the
public, while 4 miles will remain private trails until the City assumes maintenance
responsibility.
There is an estimated 41 miles of recreational trails still to be constructed in the City. Of
this amount, 26.5 miles are expected to be constructed as a part of private development
and dedicated to the City. Thus, there are no acquisition or construction costs associated
with them.
The estimated cost to the City to acquire the easements and construct the trails on public
land or dedicated open space for recreational trails is expected to be in the $2.7 million
range. The cost to maintain the recreational trail system at build out will be in the range
of $172,500 to $400,000 per year at build-out of the system. Maintenance costs may be
at the lower range if a strong volunteer base is developed and if fewer trail amenities are
constructed.
For circulation element roads that are yet to be constructed, this plan anticipates that the
trails will be incorporated into the road projects. In this manner, the trails will be
developed along with the roads and a separate funding source is not required.
Summary of Fiscal Impact:
The following is a summary of the expected costs to acquire and build those segments of
the system that cannot be acquired through dedication or built by volunteers.
Acquisition of trail easements $ 850,000
0 Trail construction $1,900,000
Total acquisition and construction $2,750,000
Total maintenance and operation at build-out: $172,500 - $500,000 per year.
3
PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. Id! #
EXHIBITS:
1. City of Carlsbad agenda bill #7340 "Proposition H Committee Recommended
Guidelines" dated 4/5/83.
CI' 3F CARLSBAD - AGENl ,31LL EXHIBIT 1 -
4B# 73qQ DEPT. HD. 4: 8. IuLE
HTG.
IEPT.R/A Group CITY MQR. -7z GGIDELINES
4/5/03 PROPOSITION H COMMITTEE RECOMNENDED ClTYAITMi
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposition H Committee recommends City Council adoption of the attached guidelines.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
After the passage of Proposition H, the City Council appointed the
menting the ordinance. Proposition H Committee to recommend guidelines to assist in imple-
The Committee has, through numerous meetings, worked through the
These points of clarification apply to sections of the ordinance which ordinance and developed points of clarification for selected portions.
the Committee ccnsiders unclear. Extensive discussion and debate contributed to the guidelines.
There are five major topics in the guidelines. The first four deal with clarification of specific sections of the ordinance.
2. 1.24.020(d) Funding Scurces 1. 1.24.030 Governmental Bodies
3. 1.24.060
4. 1.24.030 Vote Required (Phasing)
Exemptions
The Committee considers specific interpretation of these sections necessary for logical ordinance administration.
Suideline number 5 - Limitation Period, is recommended by the Committee as an important general addition to the ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
!Jane.
EXVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
$1 one.
EXHIBITS :
1. Draft Guidelines.
I
DRAFT MARCH 23, 1983.
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H
1. Governmental Bodies.
Section 1.24.030 shall be interpreted in the following manner:
"The City of Carlsbad" means the City of ' Carlsbad, a California Municipal Corporation,
For example, the ordinance would not apply and not any other separate legal entities.
to the:
A. Parking Authority B. Building Authority C. Housing & Redevelopment Commission
2. Funding Sources.
Section 1.24.020(d) shall be interpreted in the following manner:
"City funds" shall mean City of Carlsbad general fund monies; federal general revenue sharing monies and all other monies similar to those funds.
In essence, "City Funds" are TAX MONIES, collec- ted City-wide, which are subject to the limita- tions of Proposition 13 and the Gann Initiative.
development to provide additional facilities,
In general, fees which are received from new
should be exempt. For example, the following fees would not be subject to the ordinance:
A. B. C.
D.
E.
F.
Planned local drainage fees Park-in-lieu fees Public facilities fees Gifts to the City (Gifts for non- specific purposes would be considered "City funds. ")
Water funds (to the extent to which
Sewer construction funds
water funds are collected from new develop- ment and expended for capital facilities to
serve that new development, those funds
ordinance)
should be exempt, and not subject to the
DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H.../2
3. Exemptions.
Section 1.24.060 shall be interpreted in the following manner:
The operative portion of the section is the last paragraph, which states:
whether or not a vested right has been obtained in a particular case is a question of fact to be deter- mined on a case-by-case basis by the City Council, following notice and public hearing.
The three criteria established by a, b and c in
Council in this determination. However, they code section 1.24.060 should be used by the
are not - all inclusive. Vesting may also be found
on other appropriate grounds as the City Council may determine. An example of "other appropriate
ment involving the City. grounds" would be a pre-existing contractual agree-
4. Vote Required (Phasing) .
Section 1.24.030 provid'es that a project may not be separated into phases "...to avoid the effects of
nation of subjective intent. There are a number of this ordinance." The section speaks to a determi-
phases including available funding, environmental objective reasons for separating a project into
factors, construction considerations, topographical
features, coordination with surrounding developments, market conditions, the need to match project phasing with population increases or citizen demand. Unless it is reasonably apparent that a project is being
project should be allowed. Before approving part Of
"split" to avoid a vote, legitimate phasing of a
a project which may cost more than $1-million in City funds, the City Council shall determine whether or not it is subject to Secticn 1.24.030. After a duly not- iced public hearing the City Council shall make its decision by resolution which includes specific find- ings on why the project is being phased and whether
or not a vote is required.
DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H.../3
5. Limitation Period
Any legal challenge to the determinations of the City Council made in regard to the appli- cation of the ordinance or the guidelines, or their decision to undertake a particular pro-
ject be brought within thirty days. Failure
bar any challenge after that time. to institute a suit within thirty days would
... ::. '
..., ... .
.. ..* .*... .. .... .. ,,
..j.,..
: :,
9
3 CD 0
na i3
73'
rc
3
"I 24
I. - v,
."* ... .
0
v)
..., I ,.. .
..
3- ,+
s 5 Q
u)
3
c) 0
.:: :. .#* ......_. .... *..' ._ ..
rco
rc
9) < m
S
a
I n
m m "c3 0 2-
S - -
0 J
3-
Qcp
-= m
cD-r om
cp
Q CD
3
0 Ih
... .
I
0 0 S 3 0 -m -
....
c
ii c: r,
I
tl) h) 0 0
0 0
uO
tl) P 0 0
0 0
uO
., .,...,
. ..
s
Q
(b <
. .. .
. .. I . . ..e. .I
8 8
Q
..,: ...
0 0 3 3 r 5 3
..,....**.,I......, ,.
..
..: ..,.
.I.
_,....*..*
11
.... .. . .. .
..:..
4B
c) 0 0 a -0
5 m
Q s
m 5 Q
'CI 0 'CI I L
.. ,,
.. .
w 0 25 5 5 u)
9,
Q
e
-0
. ..
. ..
S u)
3 9, s
9,
. * .* .
cn U u) s 3
I cn
cn U u)
(P e
3
0
W 9, 3
... : ... .. ,. ... .. *'.... ... .
, .,. .: .. . .
v
5
v
0 -
I
.. ... . .I
... ::
, .,: ,. .
' . . ::. ... . ., ..
..
3 4
c) 0 5
. ..
. .. _,....*..~ .,. .
4 0 4D s 0 L c1
0 -
..e.+ ...,., e...*. . .. ,.
I
...... .. ._ . . I
.. ...
i@
"*.. . . , . ., . . .~ . . ..
I
c) a a- -
om =i 3 (P 5 rc
LI, r,
t;i'
TI
0 c
L
p.
e
u,
=3* c)
e
r)
W (P
s
. ..: . . -. . .. .; ....
.......
.i
5