Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - B&TDIST CITY COUNTY AGMT (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approv Item to be presented by: CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: July 24, 1990 SUBJECT: BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICTS CITY/COUNTY COOPERATIVE AGqEMENT DEPARTMENT: Public Works Departmentr4e�\ BACKGROUND John E. Medina At the study session held on July 11, 1990, the Council provided direction to staff regarding the type and extent of improvements to be included within the Bridge and Thoroughfare Construction Fee Districts. In essence, the Council stipulated that: Raised medians without landscaping should be included in the cost of the district improvements. Landscaping would be included in the medians in the areas which are adjacent to developed property. Pipe sleeves would be provided in the roadway and included in the cost so that future electrical and irrigation service can be provided to the medians without cutting up the pavement. Two lanes of pavement in each direction shall be included in the construction costs. The extension of Magic Mountain Parkway from San Fernando Road to Soledad Canyon shall be included in the Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District as a lower priority project. The portion of Magic Mountain Parkway from San Fernando Road westerly shall be included in the Valencia Bridge and Thoroughfare District as a lower priority project. Attached are two agreements., one for the Route 126 and one for the tBouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare District. These agreements are similar to the one which the council approved for the Valencia Bridge and Thoroughfare District. The agreements do not establish fees at this time nor projects, but rather provide a framework for the City and the County to administer the districts as a single district for a given area and cooperate in the construction of the improvements included within the district boundary. The City and County would collect fees within their respective districts. There Is no requirement that we collect the same fee. Since this agreement provides suitable flexibility for both the City and the County to operate those districts differently and yet in a spirit of cooperation, we suggest that the Council approve the agreements and pass them on to the County for their execution. ArrPROVED Agenda Item Zt� As you know, the County has not included the landscape median or the construction of four lanes of pavement as part of their construction cost estimate. If that is not changed, the fees to be collected within the City will be in the range of $7,500 to $8,500 per residential unit, whereas in the County it would be approximately $4,500. We suggest that the agreement transmittal letter to the County include a copy of this report and request that they include these additional costs for the entire district. At the very least, we would want these costs included in the current fee analysis they are conducting for those portions of the roadway that would be constructed within the City. In addition, we would also be informing them of the Council's desire to include portions of Magic Mountain Parkway within the Via Princessa and the Valencia Districts. It has also come to our attention that the bridge across the Santa Clara River on Soledad Canyon Road needs additional widening in order to provide an acceptable level of service in the area. This future condition reflects accumulation of traffic caused by development proposals received by the City. We are recommending that the Council directs staff to include the widening of this bridge as part of the construction costs and proposed revised fee estimates currently being prepared by the County. RECOMMENDATION 1. The Council approve and authorize the execution of both the Route 126 and Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts. 2. That staff be directed to send a copy of this agenda item to the County and request the inclusion of medians and additional pavement width and the widening of Soledad Canyon bridge into the proposed construction costs which are part of the revised fee reports currently being prepared. ATTACHMENTS Bouquet Canyon B & T District Cooperative Agreement Route 126 B & T District Cooperative Agreement /tw BOUQUET CANYON BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of 1990 by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, hereinafter termed "COUNTY", a political subdivision of the State of California, and the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, hereinafter termed "CITY", a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles. W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, in certain unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and areas in the City of Santa Clarita, there is a need, caused by anticipated private deve- lopment, to improve existing roadways and/or develop additional public highways for proper traffic circulation; and WHEREAS, there is a need to finance these additional roadway facilities; and WHEREAS, new development is willing to be assessed for its proportionate share of public roadway facility costs; and WHEREAS, an equitable and reasonable funding mechanism has been determined to be the formation of a bridge and major thoroughfare construction fee district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 21.32.200 and 22.48.235 of the Los Angeles County Code and Section 66484 of the State of California Government Code, COUNTY, on November 1, 1985, established the Bouquet Canyon Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District in the Santa Clarita Valley, hereinafter termed "DISTRICT"; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT provides for the improvement of a number of specific projects to be financed with DISTRICT fees, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS"; and WHEREAS, CITY incorporated on December 15, 1987; and WHEREAS, _a portion of DISTRICT is now -in the incorporated area of CITY and the remaining portion is in COUNTY; and 0 0 WHEREAS, CITY adopted the portion of DISTRICT within CITY's jurisdiction on November 28, 1989; and WHEREAS, administration of a joint Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District for the entire DISTRICT is in the mutual interest of COUNTY and CITY in that it will allow for the orderly and coordinated completion of infrastructure which will serve regional needs; and WHEREAS, a reasonable administration mechanism has been determined to be the execution of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, it is agreed as follows: (1) COUNTY AGREES: a. To continue to administer a separate interest earning account for fees collected by DISTRICT in COUNTY jurisdiction. b. To prepare or have prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates, acquire the necessary right of way and to do all other things necessary to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS within COUNTY's jurisdiction. c. To maintain in good condition the completed DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS that are within COUNTY's jurisdiction at COUNTY expense. (2) CITY AGREES: a. To set up and administer a separate interest earning account for fees collected by the DISTRICT in CITY's jurisdiction. b. To prepare or have prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates, acquire necessary right of way and all other things necessary to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS within CITY's jurisidiction. c. To maintain in good condition the completed DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS that are within CITY's jurisdiction at CITY expense. (2) (3) IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY: a. That CITY and COUNTY will work cooperatively together on all DISTRICT matters and will take all necessary steps to formally administer DISTRICT fees within their respective jurisdictional boundaries. b. CITY or COUNTY may allocate DISTRICT funds collected within its jurisdiction to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS in the other agency's jurisdiction. c. That costs associated with DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS are to be financed with DISTRICT fees collected by COUNTY and CITY. d. CITY will assist COUNTY in identifying the highest priority projects in order to move them to construction at the earliest possible time as funds become available. (3) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers. ATTEST: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I BY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer -Clerk the Board of Supervisors BY APPROVED AS TO FORM DEWITT W. CLINTON County Counsel BY DEPUTY (4) BY MAYOR ATTEST: BY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM EARL NEWTON City Attorney ELIZABETH HANNA ROUTE 126 BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made this day of 1990 by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, hereinafter termed "COUNTY", a political subdivision of the State of California, and the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, hereinafter termed "CITY", a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles. W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, in certain unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and areas in the City of Santa Clarita, there is a need, caused by anticipated private deve- lopment, to improve existing roadways and/or develop additional public highways for proper traffic circulation; and WHEREAS, there is a need to finance these additional roadway facilities; and WHEREAS, new development is willing to be assessed for its proportionate share of public roadway facility costs; and WHEREAS, an equitable and reasonable funding mechanism has been determined to be the formation of a bridge and major thoroughfare construction fee I district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority contained in Section 21.32.200 and 22.48.235 of the Los Angeles County Code and Section 66484 of the State of California Government Code, COUNTY, on July 21, 1987, established the Route 126 Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District in the Santa Clarita Valley, hereinafter termed "DISTRICT"; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT provides for the improvement of a number of specific projects to be financed with DISTRICT fees, hereinafter referred to as "DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS"; and WHEREAS, CITY incorporated on December 15, 1987; -and WHEREAS, a portion of DISTRICT is now -in the inc orporated area of CITY - 1 - and the remaining portion is in COUNTY; and WHEREAS, CITY adopted the portion of DISTRICT within CITY's jurisdiction on November 28, 1989; and WHEREAS, administration of a joint Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Construction Fee District for the entire DISTRICT is in the mutual interest of COUNTY and CITY in that it will allow for the orderly and coordinated completion of infrastructure which will serve regional needs; and WHEREAS, a reasonable administration mechanism has been determined to be the execution of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, it is agreed as follows: (1) COUNTY AGREES: a. To continue to administer a separate interest earning account for fees collected by DISTRICT in COUNTY jurisdiction. b. To prepare or have prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates, acquire the necessary right of way and to do all other things necessary to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS within COUNTY's jurisdiction. c. To maintain in good condition the completed DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS that are within COUNTY's jurisdiction at COUNTY expense. (2) CITY AGREES: a. To set up and administer an separate interest earning account for fees collected by the DISTRICT in CITY's jurisdiction. b. To prepare or have prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates, acquire necessary right of way and all other things necessary to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS within CITY's jurisidiction. c. To maintain in good condi tion the completed DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS that are within CITYIS jurisdiction at CITY expense. - 2 - (3) IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY: a. That CITY and COUNTY will work cooperatively together on all DISTRICT matters and will take all necessary steps to formally administer DISTRICT fees within their respective jurisdictional boundaries. b. CITY or COUNTY may allocate DISTRICT funds collected within its jurisdiction to construct DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS in the other agency's jurisdiction. c. That costs associated with DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS are to be financed with DISTRICT fees collected by COUNTY and CITY. d. CITY will assist COUNTY in identifying the highest priority projects in order to move them to construction at the earliest possible time as funds become available. - 3 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers. ATTEST: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LARRY J. MONTEILH Executive Officer -Clerk the Board of Supervisors BY APPROVED AS TO FORM DEWITT W. CLINTON County Counsel BY DEPUTY - 4 - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA BY MAYOR ATTEST: BY City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM EARL NEWTON City Attorney ELIZABETH HANNA