Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-21; Parks & Recreation Commission; 202-8; Citywide Trails Program - Financing UpdatePARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AB# 202-8 TITLE : INFO MTG. DATE: 2-21-02 CITYWIDE TRAILS PROGRAM - FINANCING UPDATE ' 0 ACTION STAFF: KETABIAN RECOMMENDED ACTION : Accept and file staff update. ITEM EXPLANATION : The City Council recently took action regarding the financing of the proposed Citywide Trail System. Staff will update the Commission regarding funding of the project. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Agenda Bill # 16,544 z 0 i= .. CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL AB# lbl3-44 DEPT. FIN MTG. 02192/02 TITLE: CITYWIDE TRAILS PROGRAM - FiNANCtNG I DEPT. HD. !kL CITY cmA* MGR RECOMMENDED ACTION: Select a financing option for the Citywide Trails Program. ITEM 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, Carisbad’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 propetfy acquisition and/or no improvement to real property the cost of which exceeds one million dollars in city funds, unless the proposed acquisifion 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 or phases 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 reason.able guidelines to implement this chapter following notice and public hearing.” (Ord. 1255 § 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: ’I.. .There are a number of objective reasons for separating a project into phases including available funding, environmental features, coordination PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. ,’ &. 15 Lf 9 project phasing with population increases, or citizen demand. Unless it is reasonably apparent that a project is being ‘kplit” to avoid a vote, Iegifirnate phasing of a project should be a!owed.. .. 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. Analysis 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 tr 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 linkages are unknown Circulation element trails on current roads will need to be coordinated with future 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 $1 million. Options The Citywide Trails Program report presented two options for financing the costs of the system. One was the General Fund as just discussed. The second was the creation of a Citywide Mello-Roos District. If Council prefers to use the General Fund to finance both the acquisition/construction and the maintenance of the Trails System, then staff will include the costs for the 2. I i’ PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. L, w$ 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 (fiscat 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. 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. 0 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: 51 72,500 - $500,000 per year. 045 3 PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. Jb! EXHIBITS: 7. Crty of Carfsbad agenda bill #7340 ‘Proposition H Committee Recommenc Guidelines” dated 4/5/83. I I rc 0 > w 0 cr Q e < c I* 3F CARLSBAD - AGENC 3111 EXHIBIT 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: proposition H Committee recommends City Council adoption Of the attached guidelines. ITEFI EXPLANATION: After the passage of Proposition H, the City Council appointed the Proposition H Committee to recommend guidelines to assist in imple- menting the ordinance. The Committee has, through numerous meetings, wo.rked through the ordinance and developed points of clarification for selected portions. These points of clarification apply to sections of the ordinance which 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. 1. 1.24.030 Governmental Bodies 3. 1.24.060 Exemptions 4. 1.24.030 Vote Required (Phasing) 2. 1.24.020(d) Funding Sources The Committee considers specific interpretation of these secticns necessary for logical ordinance administration. Guideline number 5 - Limitation Period, is recommended by the Cormittee as an important general addition to the ordinance. FISCAL IPlPACT: !lone. EZTVIRONMENTAL IMPACT : None.. EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Guidelines. 046 -3ARCH 23. 1983. GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION ti A. 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, and not any other separate legal entities. For example, the ordinance would not apply 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. In general, fees which are received from new development to provide additional facilities, should be exempt. For example, the following fees would not be subject to the ordinance: A. Planned local drainage fees B. Park-in-lieu fees C. Public facilities fees D. Gifts to the City (Gifts for non- specific purposes would be considered "City funds. ") E. Sewer construction funds F. Water funds (to the extent to which water funds are collected from new develop- ment and expended for capital facilities to serve that new development, those funds should be exempt, and not subject to the ordinance) & 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 tasis by the City Council, following notice and public hearing. The three criteria established by a, b and c in code section 1.24.060 should be used by the Council in this determination. However, they are not - all inclusive. Vesting may also be found on other appropriate grounds as the City Council may determine. An example of "other appropriate grounds" would be a pre-existing contractual agree- ment involving the City. 4. Vote Required (Phasing) . ,- Section 1.24.030 provides that a project may not be separated into phases "...to avoid the effects of this ordinance." The section speaks to a determi- nation of subjective intent. There are a number of objective reasons for separating a project into phases including available funding, environmental 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 "split" to avoid a vote, legitimate phasing of a project should be allowed. Before approving part of 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. 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 to institute a suit within thirty days would bar any challenge after that time.