HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1986/08/26 Item 4 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 5/
Meeting Date 8/26/86
ITEM TITLE: Resolution /024A Approving recommended supplemental
budget for Fiscal Year 1986-87 Montgomery Community
Development Block Grant Program
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: City Manager 9 (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects in the Montgomery area were
selected, designed, and administered by the County of San Diego prior to the
annexation and the 1986-87 CDBG fiscal year. For fiscal year 1986-87, CDBG
funds attributable to Montgomery are being received and administered by the
County, pending a special census which will allow the granting of CDBG funds
for the Montgomery area to the City starting with fiscal year 1987-88; but the
projects for fiscal year 1986-87 have been selected and designed, and will be
implemented by the City.
On April 8, 1986 the City Council approved a CDBG budget for Montgomery
projects, and that budget was submitted to HUD by the County Board of
Supervisors. Additional CDBG funds have now been released by HUD to the
County for fiscal year 1986-87, and $35,612 is being made available for
Montgomery. The Board of Supervisors seeks direction from the City for the
budgeting of those funds.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution requesting that the
County apply for 1986-87 supplemental CDBG funding for Montgomery to upgrade
the previously County-approved and funded projects: a) Fresno Avenue
Improvements, b) Date Street Improvements, c) Palm Avenue Improvements, and d)
Shy Lane Improvements, using Approach #2, a public street.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: At their August 5, 1986 meeting, the
Montgomery Planning Committee approved the above recommendation, while raising
questions regarding the appropriateness of the Shy Lane project being
constructed as a private street.
DISCUSSION:
The City is to recommend projects in Montgomery to be funded with 1986-87
supplemental CDBG funds, estimated at $35,612. In accordance with an
established agreement between the City and the County, the County will apply
for CDBG funding for the projects recommended by the City unless it is
determined that the City-recommended projects are ineligible for CDBG
funding. The County will undertake the public hearing process and submit the
supplemental funding application to the federal government.
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 8/ 6/86
The Council has a number of options for programming of the additional funds:
it can approve a new project; it can augment one or more of the projects it
has already approved for fiscal year 1986-87; or it can use the funds to
upgrade prior years County projects, approved but not yet undertaken. The
staff recommendation is to pursue the last option.
There are a number of Montgomery public improvement projects which were
granted Block Grant funding by the County in previous years but have not yet
been implemented. Following the annexation of Montgomery, the County Public
Works Department submitted their designs for approximately twelve of these
projects to the City for review. The City Engineer has recommended that
County Engineering designs be altered for several of these projects, so that
in their finished form they would meet City standards. Upgrading of the
projects would increase their costs, and the County Department of Housing and
Community Development has indicated that the County cannot provide the entire
amount of additional funding needed to upgrade the projects. However, County
Housing and Community Development has indicated that by using the supplemental
CDBG allocation for 1986-87, the projects could be fully implemented to meet
City standards. The County also has a small reserve to add to these projects
in case of cost overruns. The combination of the new CDBG funds and County
reserves could accomplish the improvements desired by the City Engineer.
The County-funded Montgomery projects recommended for upgrading by the City
Engineer are as follows:
Fresno Avenue Improvements -- The project is located on a four block long
stretch of Fresno Avenue between Anita Street and Main Street. The street
currently is of uneven width and has no curb, gutter or sidewalk on either
side. Currently, both sides of the street are bounded by dirt. The
County proposes to install curbs, gutters and sidewalks on the east side
of Fresno Avenue between Anita Street and Main Street.
The City Engineer recommends that improvements on the east side of the
street be moved three feet farther east and that curb, gutter, and
sidewalk be installed on the west side of the street. The project would
also involve the replacement of trees needed to be removed on the east
side of the street. Such a configuration would still allow parking on the
west side of the street, which is much needed due to a church on the east
side of Fresno Avenue.
Original County Cost Estimate -- $118,300
Supplemental Contribution -- $ 10,000
Date Street Improvements -- The project is located on Date Street, south
of Main Street, in Broderick Acres. The paved street currently varies
between 0 and 18 feet wide and slopes southward, carrying storm water
across private lots at the south end of the street and eventually into the
Otay River. The County proposes to widen Date Street and install a storm
drain and gutters to improve drainage in the area. The City Engineer
recommends that the proposed storm drain pipe be extended so that it
Page 3, Item 1/
Meeting Date 8/26/86
prevents flooding from occurring on the property adjacent to the street
and that the pipe be made of sturdier material than what is in the County
design.
Original County Cost Estimate -- $149,600
Supplemental Contribution -- $ 11 ,000
Palm Avenue Improvements -- The project is located on Palm Avenue, which
runs parallel to Date Street approximately 600 feet east of Date Street.
The paved street currently varies between 0 and 22 feet wide and also
slopes southward, carrying storm water across private lots at the south
end of the street and eventually into the Otay River. Virtually the same
project as what is proposed on Date Street is also proposed by the County
for Palm Avenue. The City Engineer recommends virtually the same
additional measures be taken as he proposes for Date Street. He also
recommends that the cul-de-sac at the end of Palm Avenue be extended
further south to lessen the elevation grade of the street.
Original County Cost Estimate -- $149,600
Supplemental Contribution -- $ 11 ,000
Shy Lane Improvements -- This private street is located parallel and
approximately 350 feet south of Oxford Street in Montgomery. The street
stretches approximately 500 feet east of Fifth Avenue sloping moderately
up then down as it moves eastward. The street has been only partially
paved and is badly eroded, with many ruts, cracks and potholes. The
street has no curb, gutter, sidewalk or cul-de-sac. Storm water collects
in an unimproved ditch at the east end of the street and floods private
property. The County proposes to pave the street from Fifth Avenue to the
end of the street.
The Council is asked to choose between two different approaches to
improving Shy Lane. They are:
1 . Proceed with County project of substandard improvement to a private
street, augmented with additional CDBG funds to make changes desired
by City Engineer.
2. Together with County, redesign project as City street built to City
standards, seek dedication of right-of-way by property owners, and
fund additional costs from City CDBG funds.
The first approach would implement a CDBG project approved by the County
because it was desired by the area citizens, because it would benefit a
substantial number of low and moderate income residents, and because as
designed it was inexpensive enough to not require an inordinate amount of
the Block Grant dollars available for Montgomery.
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 8/ 6/86
If this approach is chosen, in addition to the County design, the City
Engineer recommends that at the east end of the street there be
constructed either a P.C.C. ditch from the street to existing 24"
reinforced concrete pipe at the rear of the property or a connection to
the existing P.C.C. ditch just east of the end of the road. It is also
recommended that the drainage from Shy Lane near Fifth Avenue be
intercepted into the existing drainage system on the east side of Fifth
Avenue, south of Shy Lane. These additional improvements would prevent
flooding in the property adjacent to Shy Lane.
Arguing for this approach, this project would greatly improve the existing
conditions for residents while keeping down the total cost.
Arguing against this approach, funding a private street improvement with
public funds, even if principally County Block Grant funds, might set a
precedent for future anticipated City action. Additionally, it should be
recognized that street maintenance is likely to be deferred by the
property owners due to inability to pay and disinterest. Even if the City
goes on record as being unwilling to accept the street and maintain the
street in the future, there could be much pressure on future City Councils
to do so.
Approach #1 :
Original County Funding -- $75,300
Supplemental Contribution -- 3,612
TOTAL $78,912
The second approach would improve the street as a public street to City
street standards. It would be necessary to acquire right-of-way,
substantially grade the street to improve site distance, install curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks in lieu of an inverted crown street with surface
drainage down the middle, reconstruct driveway connections, install a full
cul-de-sac, install street lights, and relocate utilities. Such measures
would add at least $100,000 to the cost of the project, and that cost is
based on the assumption that the residents would contribute the required
right-of-way.
Arguing for this approach, this project would provide the residents with
maximum street improvement, minimizing safety hazards and unknown
potential City liability. The project would be consistent with existing
City policy and practices.
Arguing against this approach, the project cost could at least double, and
when tested against overall community need and available funds, may not
deliver an appropriate level of benefit. Although a full assessment of
infrastructure needs in Montgomery has not been completed, it is the
Engineering Department's reaction that Shy Lane improvement at public
street cost would not be a high priority project in the larger context of
Montgomery infrastructure needs. To provide the funds it would be
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 8/ 6/86
difficult to get two-thirds of the property owners to agree to an
assessment district to build a fully improved public street, per the
annexation policy, when many of the property owners are either low and
moderate income households who are economically strained or are absentee
owners who might not be as concerned with conditions as residents. In
lieu of the assessment district being formed, the costs would have to be
funded with future Block Grant or other City funds.
Approach #2:
Original County funding -- $ 75,300
Supplemental Contribution -- 3,612
Future City CDBG funds -- 100,000
TOTAL $178,912
Recommendation on Shy Lane: Although the City might not have chosen to
make Shy Lane a CDBG project, requesting the County to delete the project
at this point does not seem to be appropriate. The citizens of Montgomery
requested the project, the County Board of Supervisors and HUD approved
it, and the residents are anticipating it. The Montgomery Planning
Committee strongly supports it. The choice clearly seems to be to proceed
with either private street or public street. Realizing the drawback of
the cost/benefit relationship, but countering that concern with both a
recognition of the County's commitment to Shy Lane residents and the
City s commitment to quality public improvements throughout the City, it
is recommended that the City pursue improvements to Shy Lane as a public
street. An appropriate course of action would be to ask the County to do
the following:
1 . Do not proceed with improvement of Shy Lane as currently designed.
2. Apply to HUD to budget the additional $3,612 of CDBG funds
recommended in Approach #1 to the Shy Lane project.
3. Work with City to solicit dedication of right-of-way to City by Shy
Lane property owners.
4. Accept City Engineer's redesign of Shy Lane improvement to
City-street standard as project design.
At the same time, it would be necessary for the City Council to identify
and appropriate funding for the Shy Lane improvement as a City street.
The City has been informed by HUD that it will receive an additional
$147,000 in CDBG funds for fiscal year 1986-87 through the same process
that is making the additional $35,612 of CDBG funds available to the
County for Montgomery. When a more formal cost estimate of the additional
costs for Shy Lane is available, as one possible source of funding,
Council could request HUD to approve the necessary amount from that
$147,000 to be budgeted to the Shy Lane project, subsequent to a public
hearing.
Page 6, Item
Meeting Date 8 26/86
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action with Approach #2 for Shy Lane would
request the County to appropriate $35,612 of CDBG funds attributable to
Montgomery to the recommended projects. It would further create the
expectation that the Council would appropriate approximately $100,000 in
available City CDBG funds for the Shy Lane project at a future date,
subsequent to a public hearing. It should be noted that with the 1987-88
fiscal year, Chula Vista will receive CDBG funds for the entire existing City,
with no separate identification of Montgomery and no participation by the
County. The Council could unilaterally pay back the "pre-annexation City"
next year for the excess Montgomery attribution this year by its geographical
distributions of Block Grant Capital Improvement Projects.
If Approach #1 for Shy Lane is selected by the Council , the action would still
request the County to appropriate $35,612 of CDBG funds attributable to
Montgomery to the recommended projects.
WPC 2438H
Led / - /
by ft,'` City Council of
Chula Vis , California
Dated ��G d ,4,
w r ■ \ i 1 -:.'
Gts <' MYNA CT •e WA
en cc.> r- LHUY ill fi
•
e-
a.
W 'eJ Cr) O r.'w: REGENCY WY. K El
1- '10 d� • •• - rte. !0.
7 y d N0131 NV2iD �b .fib 'fib Z4. in y0 0 0
0 \
\o �U a r J��b SKYLARK J it RIOS AVE # HEN IM I� B®
SAVE w ?v )moo �� ~—w t0`W v, BM ICED
r t+ O 2 ~ Q K o A, \ U
•yf I. yf K b' . O _ ,, PALM AVE.
AVE 2 O Y a J
¢O NY :VC
(�(f.r- , LARKHAVEN oar I NI O Ji >' a ` I
ON �Y.+ 1 '' r• r ,r•::r( 0'l3 ','Br 1 r W
,MY Jvp� �`xWpV '( ':('rC:' r rrc'_ 00 Yy0
o HEL r ` rfrrrr N ; a �1
`� e=,-Ci a I 0 DATE ST. >
L� CV` LOMA W LANE a o h) ��a
JADE JADE AVE. w
pCp WAY CT •J
Oat C)'4° JASPER JASPER AVE. JJ 7H
CT. 0500 /600 P� I
f o a • n Z: E la I O Ia R
Q:u.at °IP �-W 1
I MACE ST0 i:1` o PECT f+\ �: O g d C� v WY. Y z I-F 1
p\ a-
d
)* \ Z 4L u+ O CONNOLEY AVE.
U r u....'. ;• NTER
1/
ST (V 1 III ME 7 A.
u ► � , I
ALBANY YC. ? .' ® �
Min I
d
v n
J O Y Z IM
C N
W a i > >' Q
ol W ` Z ; E7
ELd pVE BANNER AVE. ? Q:
O
TEENA t l
OR. o p� y/ /
AV£ 3 n -(
OMO o DEL R90NTE AV 4-I>
`��
a' 7 SCI f-R /f I
a W n
"1- @1
C
F-
W I- W .
1 B ~ >
O = a n� V1 kJ
,i0);4c0000000.0 - - ne o Q
r N EL �VGp FRESNO >:.R AVE. ��� J IA
o
5 o.1 j —El ' Q .0 J
P li.-. 41 M In II L 0
1- PV. HERMOSA AVE.
o
p
(l ___I t
m
w � Y O' D
au
¢ •
W ~ 7TH ST. II
•Y* a?iERY` pVE. c
o '3°0 E toe
i` Og<A
RD EW C
O G O ..a W OEN pV E ! Z I
s E`
Y O II
U
.. .4i"..-N 0 • 27TH ST
AQ AHD 9 n 1