ALGA NORTE COMMUNITY PARK AND AQUATIC CENTER

By Farrah Douglas

The City Council recently voted to spend another $30,000 to study the feasibility of building Alga Norte Community Park and Aquatic Center, citing an uncertain state budget and tight finances for the city. While the budget is tight, the funds have been allocated through the citizen-approved Proposition C in 2002 and the Facilities Fees charged to developers for the impact of development on this part of town.

Here is a brief summary of the following document: The land was donated by developers for the purpose of building Alga Note Park and Swim Complex. The funds are available to build it. The source of the majority of the funds is Facilities Fees that are charged to developers to mitigate the impact of development on the city and its residents. Here is the document itself:

Responses to Questions Received from City Council Candidate Regarding Alga Norte Park

Q: Total funds available as of today for the construction of the Alga Swim Complex.

A: The total budget appropriation for the project was $50.4 million. To date, funds have been spent on planning and design, rough grading and inspections. There is approximately $45.5 million currently available for the total park (park and aquatics center). There is $27.4 million earmarked for the aquatics center available.

Q: How much ($ amount) was contributed by the developers as part of their in-lieu park fees?

A: The developers were not required to pay "Park-in Lieu" (PIL) fees because they dedicated the land as part of their approval process. PIL is only paid if land is not dedicated. In large master plans, such as the Villages of La Costa, land is typically dedicated which meets their PIL requirement.

Q: How much is from our General Fund (taxpayers' funds?)

A: General Fund monies ("taxpayer funds") for capital construction purposes are placed in what is called the "General Capital Construction Fund" (GCC) as a way of earmarking the money for capital projects. The remaining balance on the GCC for Alga Norte Park is $21.8 million.

Q: What other sources of money make up the total available funds?

A: "Public Facilities Fees" (PFF) are the other source of funding for Alga Norte Park. This fee is collected from developers to fund construction of public facilities related to the impacts from development. The remaining available balance on the PFF account for Alga Norte Park is $23.7 million.

Q: Are there restrictions on the use of any portion of the funds? For example I heard that the developers' contributions can only be used for construction and not the operations of the park. Is this correct?

A: In 1991, the City Council adopted Policy Number 17, which sets the PFF fees aside for "acquiring, building, improving, expanding, and equipping" of capital projects. This policy is also integrated into the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Section 21.90.050). There is no provision in this policy or code for use of this funding source for operations and maintenance.

The GCC funds are less restrictive as to use, since it is not made up of developer fees or other special revenue sources. However, the funds in the GCC are set aside for one-time capital projects, such as Alga Norte, and historically have not been used for ongoing operating and maintenance costs. The City Council has discretion over the use of these funds and could choose to change from past practices.

Q: I have received the latest bid on the construction which seemed to save around $10 mil in total. Is there any ordinance, regulations, laws that says this saving must be returned to the General Fund?

A: Generally speaking, savings from such a capital projects would simply not be drawn from the PFF or GCC, and would remain in those funds for use on other capital projects. As a matter of practice, the city generally uses more restrictive sources of funds first for capital projects (in this case the PFF funds), so a reduction in the cost of the project would allow the excess funds to remain in the GCC for use on future projects. While this has been a practice, there is no law, regulation, or ordinance which would preclude the Council from pursuing a different policy or practice related to using GCC monies only for one-time capital projects.

Q: Can the savings (whatever the final amount turns out to be) be legally used for the operations of the park?

A: See answer to question above. It should be noted that the true savings on a project are only realized when the project is completed, as there are often change orders that increase project costs above the original bid price.

Q: How many years will the construction take if we start say winter of 2010?

A: It is estimated that the project will take approximately 2 -3 years to complete from the actual start of construction to opening day (this includes a "grow-in" period to establish turf and plantings and to hire and train staff on the aquatics center operations).

Q: Are there any stimulus funds that we can either apply for or use for the park?

A: To date, exemptions in the stimulus funding bill preclude this money from being used for projects with pools and community centers. It is the opinion of the City's lobbyist that Alga Norte Park would not qualify for the stimulus funds. However, there are changes from time to time in what is a qualified project and we are tracking that to see if opportunities arise.

Q: If the answer is yes, does this require the City to use union workers?

A: Any money from Federal or State grants requires prevailing wage rates (i.e. union labor).

Q: What do you contribute to the reduced cost of construction according to the latest bid you've sent us? Economic times? Charter City allowing us to use companies that are not union driven?

A: The project has gone out to bid only once (late 2007). The low bid came in approximately $10 million under the estimate. While it can't be said with certainty the reason for the relatively low contractor's bid prices, it is our opinion that the reason was a result of the beginning of the economic downturn.

It was not related to being a charter city and using non-prevailing wage because the voters hadn't adopted the charter at the time of the bidding.