HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-08 Special Called City Council Retreat Meeting
STATE OF TEXAS )(
COUNTY OF HARRIS )(
CITY OF LA PORTE )(
City Council Agenda
Notice is hereby given of a Special Called City Council Retreat Meeting of La Porte City Council to be
held April 19, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. at the La Porte Police Department in the Training Room located at
3001 N. 23rd La Porte, Texas 77571, regarding the items of business according to the agenda listed
below
Next Ord. 2008-3073
Next Res. 2008-05
1. Call to Order
2. Receive direction from City Council on upcoming 2008-2009 Fiscal Year Budget
3. Adjournment
THIS FACILITY HAS DISABILITY ACCOMMODA TlONS AVAILABLE. REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODA TlONS OR
INTERPRETIVE SERVICES AT MEETINGS SHOULD BE MADE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. PLEASE
CONTACT CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 281-471-5020 OR TDD LINE 281471-5030 FOR FURTHER INFORM A TlON.
~proved: . .
. ~ itr.!-M.C-
Mart a A. Gillett, TRMC, CMC
City Secretary
To:
Mayor and City Council
City of La Porte
Interoffice Memorandum
From:
Ron Bottoms, City Manager
Date:
April 8, 2008
Subject:
City Council Budget Retreat
You will note that we only have one item on the agenda for our council retreat on April 19th
and that is to generally discuss the upcoming budget with the city council and receive
direction and input to be incorporated into next year's budget. J understand that this is a
different approach from years past, but what I am striving for is some direction on a few items
and then receiving input from the council on what you would like to see built into next year's
budget. The meeting has been purposefully left somewhat unstructured to allow for
discussion on a multitude of topics as they pertain to the budget - at council's discretion.
The structured part of the meeting consists of:
1. Financial status report and forecast
2. Council direct staff on:
a. GASB 45
b. TMRS
c. Employee benefits
d. Parks Trails implementation
3. Council provide input to staff regarding the following departments:
a. Police
b. Fire and EMS
c. Public Works
d. Parks
e. Planning
f. Golf Course
g. Municipal Court
h. Administration
i. Finance/Utility Billing
Please take time to consider each of the departments in the city and what, if anything, you
would like for us to incorporate in the budget for each department, as well as the city as a
whole.
I do not anticipate the meeting extending much beyond the noon hour (I would hope that we
would be done by around 1 :30 p.m.).
Thank you for taking the time to consider next years budget and for investing your time and
energy into the future of our city.
2
...... ~
~... ~
Q.) ~ -..
...-. '..'-....... ...... :'.'"
,. ...- a-
t.:.) ~, ~.
~~o
.~
~ e.t) '";
~. '.' - -..,.'..
..... r ..., C.)
~ ~, =:
~= ~
.- A~ ::
uf~
~
00
o
I
001'-
(1)0
a~
G:) ~.
>~
G:) 00
~ e
G.)2
.., . ....
Cd. ~
=
(1)
::>Cl.
><
~
~
12,000,000
11,000,000
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000-
6,000,000
Property Tax Growth
General Fund Current Tax Collections
10 Year History
-'
-".
-'
Y-T-D
Collections
$11.15 mil
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Certified Revised
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2007-08
'-- )
Fiscal Year 2007-08
8,200,000
8,000,000
7,800,000
7,600,000
7,400,000
7,200,000
7,000,000
6,800,000
6,600,000
In-Lieu of Taxes Trends
Actual
2002-03
Actual
2003-04
Actual
2004-05
Actual
2005-06
Actual
2006-07
Budget
2007-08
Revised
2007-08
25,.00%
20.00010
15.00%
10.00010
5.00%
0.000/0
-5.00%
Sales Tax Trends
Historical Growth - 10 Years
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
'-0
=
=
~.
.......
co
~
o
=
o
'-'
General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
500/0 of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
REVENUES
Property taxes $11,050,524 $ 11,334,111 $ 283,587 102.57% $ 10,433,417 96.75%
Franchise taxes 1,945,989 1,008,924 (937,065) 51.85% 1,042,033 52.34%
Sales taxes 2,882,538 1,538,366 (1,344,172) 53.37% 1,408,899 57.87%
Industrial payments 7,500,000 7,856,312 356,312 104.75% 8,209,632 120.09%
Other taxes 62,727 18,701 (44,026) 29.81% 15,070 26.31 %
Licenses and permits 669,430 278,764 (390,666) 41.64% 516,059 115.22%
Fines and forfeits 755,106 738,322 (16,784) 97.78% 420,479 55.83%
Charges for services 3,908,613 1,919,644 (1,988,969) 49.11% 1,856,975 49.40%
Intergovernmental 6,053 3,245 (2,808) 53.61% 2,940 0.00%
Interest 770,400 464,505 (305,895) 60.29% 446,850 68.75%
Miscellaneous 31,305 17,911 (13,394) 57.21 % 12,009 40.03%
Total revenues 29,582,685 25,178,805 (4,403,880) 85.11% 24,364,363 87.82%
General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
500/0 of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
EXPENDITURES
General Government:
Administration I 2,742,052 1,168,572 1,573,480 42.62% 1,118,905 45.11%
Finance 3,150,305 1,275,764 1,874,541 40.50% 1,131,582 37.18%
Planning & Engineering 1,922,278 829,355 1,092,923 43.14% 832,448 46.17%
Public Safety:
Fire and Emergency Services 4,042,669 1,833,495 2,209,174 45.35% 1,727,884 46.74%
Police 9,215,455 4,277,981 4,937,474 46.42% 3,955,435 47.05%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 350,755 156,870 193,885 44.72% 141,511 45.31 %
Streets 2,368,549 1,104,725 1,263,824 46.64% 988,738 43.68%
Health and Sanitation:
Solidwaste 2,062,704 1,002,625 1,060,079 48.61% 995,541 52.14%
Culture and Recreation
Parks and Recreation 3,496,754 1,344,434 2,152,320 38.45% 1,358,307 41.41%
Total expenditures 29,351,521 12,993,821 16,357,700 44.27% 12,250,351 45.04%
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures 231,164 12,184,984 11,953,820 12,114,012
1 Includes Admin, Community Investment, HR, MC, Purch, MIS, City Seer, Legal and City Council.
General Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
500/0 of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
OTHER FINANCING SOURCFS (USFS)
Transfers in 429,327 214,664 (214,663) 50.00% 209,858 50.00%
Transfers out (913,968) (570,298) 343,670 62.40% (754,398) 59.55%
Total other financing sources (uses (484,641) (355,634) 129,007 73.38% (544,540) 64.28%
Net change in fund balances (253,477) 11,829,350 12,082,827 11,569,472
Fund balances-beginning 13,857,603 13,857,603 11,466,073
Fund balances-ending $ 13,604,126 $ 25,686,953 $12,082,827 $ 23,035,545
---- ----- ----- ..--
Assumptions - Revenues
Property tax at 97.5% collection rate
(FY 2008-09 growth rate based on supplemental roll through February.
Fiscal years 2010-2019 percentage based on historical growth rate)
Industrial Payments (In Lieu)
(FY 2008-09 growth rate based on new contracts-62% vs 53%,
and new construction that is scheduled to roll up to the 62% calculation.)
Sales tax
Franchise Fees
Miscellaneous Taxes (Mixed Beverage Tax)
Licenses and Permits
Fines & Forfeits
Charges for Service
Parks and Recreation
Recreation & Fitness Center
Interest Earnings
(FY 2008-09 decline based on current economic conditions
and the decline in the overnight rate)
4.00%
1.00%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
2.00%
3.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
Assumptions - Expenditures
Personal Services
Supplies
Maintenance
Capital Outlay
Budget Requests -Merit
2.25%
6.00%
3.50%
2.00%
3.00%
Other Items Included:
OPEB Funding - $500,000 included for FY2009, and then grown annually by the
projected increase in healthcare costs.
Sick Buy-Back - Averages approximately $150,000 per year for the next 9 years
then drops significantly the remaining 6 years.
Projected Revenues and Expenditures
46,000,000
45,000,000
44,000,000
43,000,000
42,000,000 -
41,000,000
40,000,000
39,000,000
38,000,000
37,000,000
36,000,000
35,000,000
34,000,000
33,000,000
32,000,000
31,000,000
30,000,000 30,010,812
29,000,000
.. 43,466,646
39;712,615
38,687,683. . _n n 39,678,047
35,633,807
36,338,268
a,
(\}::>
~\::,
.~'I>
.~
0<'
a,
(\5:S
\::,
'!:>~~
~($
~~
\::,0)
a,'
~\:5
!<,.,~
.~c;j
<{<.o")
\::,
\::,O)~
r;y" 'Y ,"v
~ ,
:-, b<
,rv' {1~
'"
'!It'
~
b
"-f~
,
'"
'0'
~
%
",>:
,
0)
00"
'\:
I --- Total Expenditures
--- Total Revenues I
46,000,000
45,000,000
44,000,000
43,000,000
42,000,000
41,000,000
40,000,000
39,000,000
38,000,000
37,000,000
36,000,000
35,000,000
34,000,000
33,000,000
32,000,000
31,000,000
30,000,000
29,000,000
Projected Revenues and Expenditures
(without OPEB Funding)
30,010,812
f;:)'b
(\'
~f;:)
.~'11
.S'i
0<:'
f;:)'b
(\'
f;:)
~'lJ~
~:($
"?-~
f;:)~
a;-
~\;:j
vo$!
.~
,o~
~
f;:)
f;:)~~
, "v
r;;y' "
" ,
"
~,
"
,'? ~
{v ,'?'
b
,,~
,
"
'cf'
"
'b
,,>:
,
~
'tf'
'\:
I - Total Expenditures
-.- Total Revenues I
~
=
::s
~
".......
~
~
.. ....
.....
. ....
~
Utility Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
50%. of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
Operating Revenues:
User fees $ 7,929,820 $ 4,090,936 $ (3,838,884) 51.59% $ 3,168,075 41.59%
Operating expenses:
Personal services 2,592,777 1,214,484 1,378,293 46.84% 1,140,277 45.37%
Supplies 198,624 104,168 94,456 52.44% 91 ,219 44.81%
Other services and charges 4,387,204 1,674,994 2,712,210 38.18% 1,615,476 36.43%
Total operating expenses 7,178,605 2,993,646 4,184,959 41.70% 2,846,972 39.81%
Operating income 751,215 1,097 ,290 346,075 321,103
N onop erating revenues (exp enses):
Interest income 199,800 73,617 (126,183) 36.85% 129,681 66.67%
Debt Service Principal and Interest (479,105) (437,116) 41,989 91.24% (445,803) 90.18%
Income before contributions and transfers 471,910 733,791 261,881 4,981
Transfers in 1,209,874 627,949 (581,925) 51.90% 404,524 53.61%
Transfers out (2,199,219) (1,099,609) 1,099,610 50.00% (638,033) 50.00%
Change in net assets (517,435) 262,131 779,566 (228,528)
Net assets - beginning of the year 23,606,429 23,606,429 21,520,711
Net assets - end of the year $ 23,088,994 $ 23,868,560 $ 779,566 $21,292,183
rJj
~
=
='
~
Q)
rJj
.C
~
G)
~
~
13
o
Sylvan Beach Pavilion / Past 4 Years
478 total rentals
164 La Porte resident rentals
( 34.31 % of all rentals)
121 Friday night rentals @$1,250.00 = $151,250.00
174 Saturday night rentals@ $1,500.00 = $ 261.000.00
295 weekend rentals $ 412.250.00
(61.72 % of total rental revenues)
$128,311.00 total utilities / $ 525,808.00 total rental revenue
( 24.40 % of rental revenue to utility costs)
'03/ '04 utilities
'06/ '07 utilities
$14,550.00 (119 rentals @ $122.27)
$ 39,022.00 (135 rentals @ $ 289.05
236.41 % increase in utility costs ($ 166.78/ rental)
$ 620.54 per rental on ((off weekend rentals" (183 rentals)
Svlvan Beach Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
50%) of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
Operating Revenues:
User fees $ 173,380 $ 81,506 $ (91,874) 47.01% $ 94,828 54.83%
Operating expenses:
Personal services 156,781 79,928 76,853 50.98% 73,061 51.30%
Supplies 5,700 1,212 4,488 21.26% 2,414 42.35%
Other services and charges 111,922 16,214 95,708 14.49% 18,365 30.53%
Total operating expenses 274,403 97,354 177,049 35.48% 93,840 45.06%
Operating income (101,023) (15,848) 85,175 988
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 11,900 6,166 (5,734) 51.82% 6,523 62.69%
Income before contributions and transfers (89,123) (9,682) 79,441 7,511
Transfers in 68,914 36,414 (32,500) 52.84% 16,037 56.20%
Transfers out (3,669) (1,835) 1,834 50.01% (1,819) 50.00%
Change in net assets (23,878) 24,897 48,775 21 ,729
Net assets - beginning of the year 254,457 254,457 263,765
Net assets - end of the year $ 230,579 $ 279,354 $ 48,775 $ 285,494
~ort Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
50% of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Year to Date Budget
Operating Revenues:
User fees $ 39,806 $ 24,439 $ (15,367) 61.40% $ 25,032 76.48%
Operating expenses:
Other services and charges 22,541 8,754 13,787 38.84% 6,413 3.39%
Total operating expenses 22,541 8,754 13,787 38.84% 6,413 3.39%
Operating income 17,265 15,685 (1,580) 18,619
Nonop erating revenues (exp enses):
Interest income 16,100 4,915 (11,185) 30.53% 9,094 72.75%
Income before contributions and transfers 33,365 20,600 (12,765) 27,713
Transfers in 0.00% 0.00%
Transfers out (855) (428) 427 50.06% (424) 50.00%
Change in net assets 32,510 20,172 (12,338) 27,289
Net assets - beginning of the year 2,433,477 2,433,477 2,394,432
Net assets - end of the year $ 2,465,987 $ 2,453,649 $ (12,338) $ 2,421,721
- ------
La Porte Area Water Authority Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
500;" of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Budget Year to Date Budget
Operating Revenues:
Userfees $1,211,808 $ 529,857 $ (681,951) 43.72% $1,268,916 $ 449,081 35.39%
Operating expenses:
Supp lies 300 300 0.00% 300 0.00%
Other services and charges 1,655,982 780,029 875,953 47.10% 1,571,356 276,050 17.57%
Total operating expenses 1,656,282 780,029 876,253 47.10% 1,571,656 276,050 17.56%
Operating income (444,474) (250,172) 194,302 (302,740) 173,031
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 84,038 60,885 (23,153) 72.45% 76,000 56,431 74.25%
Debt Service Billings 758,531 379,447 (379,084) 50.02% 760,700 316,959 41.67%
Debt Service Principal and Interest (758,532) (628,738) 129,794 82.89% (760,700) (616,963) 81.1 0%
Income before contributions and transfers (360,437) (438,578) (78,141) (226,740) (70,542)
Transfers in 0.00% 0.00%
Transfers out (61,478) (30,739) 30,739 50.00% (59,454) (29,727) 50.00%
Change in net assets (421,915) (469,317) (47,402) (286,194) (100,269)
Net assets - beginning of the year 5,805,557 5,805,557 5,504,789 5,504,789
Net assets - end of the year $ 5,383,642 $ 5,336,240 $ (47,402) $ 5,218,595 $ 5,404,520
Golf Course Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Sixth Month Ended March 31, 2008 with Comparative Data for the Prior Year
500/0 of Year Lapsed
Current Year Prior Year
Actual Percent of Actual Percent of
Budget Year to Date Variance Budget Budget Year to Date Budget
Operating Revenues:
User fees $ 1,069,904 $ 494,729 $ (575,175) 46.24% $ 1,103,500 $ 426,194 38.62%
Operating expenses:
Personal services 872,571 416,947 455,624 47.78% 782,814 376,416 48.08%
Supplies 195,815 71,472 124,343 36.50% 186,600 107,211 57.45%
Other services and charges 220,645 75,147 145,498 34.06% 215,418 81,667 37.91%
Total operating expenses 1,289,031 563,566 725,465 43.72% 1,184,832 565,294 47.71%
Operating income (219,127) (68,837) 150,290 (81,332) (139,100)
Nonoperating revenues (expenses):
Interest income 5,527 5,527 0.00% 0.00%
Income before contributions and transfers (219,127) (63,310) 155,817 (81,332) (139,100)
Transfers in 65,585 39,835 (25,750) 60.74% 110,279 65,279 59.19%
Transfers out (29,193) (14,597) 14,596 50.00% (28,947) (14,474) 50.00%
Change in net assets (182,735) (38,072) 144,663 (88,295)
Net assets - beginning of the year 2,861,674 2,861,674 2,951,708 2,951,708
Net assets - end of the year $ 2,678,939 $ 2,823,602 $ 144,663 $ 2,951,708 $ 2,863,413
It)
.
m
en
C
(:)
<(
a..
()CX>
.,0
~O
.eN
-
o ..
O~
-
0)===
CO s...
..co.
U<(
.-
~
men
e..
.- .-
"....
e G)
:I e
~ CI)
Cl)a:I
u"
e G)
~ .5
>....
" G)
CCQ
· The advance funding of OPES
presents a vehicle for
employers to offset liabilities
and provide a payment for
future years.
Money is set aside in a
irrevocable trust annually.
The amount (ARC) is based on
an actuarial study.
Process Used to Advance Fund
Defined Post employment Benefits
Period of active Employment
Period of active Employment
.
Step 1: Project future
benefit payments
Step 2:
Discount to
Present value
(PV)
ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC
J t~
$ Total cost (PV)
Step 3: Use actual cost allocation method to assign total cost at present value
individual periods of employee service by means of the employer's annu
contribution (ARC). The future benefit or total cost is our total liability.
'"'C
Q)
L..
::l
0-
Q)
L..
_ ('--
(0"'-'"
::lO
cO::
ffi~
Q) c
..c 0
'+-' --
'+-'
en ::l
-- ..c
'+-' --
(0'=
..c c
S 8
.
· What the City has to pay each
year to an outside trust.
· Our actuarial study asked for a
$1,550,914 annual
contribution of which $661 ,331
is cash (pay go) and the
remaining $889,584 would be
set aside.
· Selected Strategies to reduce our
Ii a b iI i ty .
· Reduce benefits- change number of
years eligible to receive health
care-end at 65.
· Lower benefit levels- different tiers
(new employees)
· Convert from defined benefit plan to
defined contribution. (city pays a
certain amount only).
· What is the difference
between a defined contribution
plan and a defined benefit
plan?
· Defined contribution plans
· Focus on inputs (contributions)
· Defined benefit plans
· Focus on outputs (future results)
· Hybrid plans
· Elements of both
-c
Q)
> c
- 0
o --
>...
-~ B
~ -c
en'"
__ c
'- 0
~u
Q)-c
~ Q)
Q) C
..c~
... Q)
cn-c
--
... CO C'--
CO ..c C
..c...co
S -~ c.
.
· Resources accumulated in an
employee account ultimately
may prove insufficient to
sustain the level of benefits
anticipated by the employee.
"'0
0) ('-.
';> c
-0$
,;>0-
c.....
.- .-
~~
(/) c
.c 0)
~.o
0)"'0
~ 0)
0) C
s;t+=
;p.I 0)
(/)"'0
.-
..... ro
ro
s;:.:S
$ .~
.
e e
co co
..c:: C'>-
+.J e co
L.. .- e
Q) .!::: 0
..c:::J+:;
C'> C"'.-
.- Q) -0
..c::L..-c
Q) ~ CO
> -0 '+- en
o Q) 0 Q)
L..+.Jeu
o..COOL..
en 0..._ :J
+.J .u en 0
cn+:;:Jcn
Oe'+-Q)
() CO .~ L..
.
('-.
C
~~
CO-
.-- C
~ 0
(/) .~
.e. ~
0)8
.c~
~ C
(/) 0
~ (.)
0)-0
.0 0)
o .s
.cO;
"$-0
.
~__o_ooooo
--,~----------
(/)
e
o
.-
'+- .......,
o ro
.......,
~ u
en Q)
.C C> c..
e ><
~ .S; Q)
""""0.......,
~ 0. ~
~oE
..ceO
.......,
Q)(/).......,
Q) Q) e
~()Q)
o '- .-
- :J U
c.. 0 .-
E(/)~
w~(/)
.
co
.~ ('-.
~ c
en~
.C c..
Q.)~
..c'+-
+-' Q.)
en C
'- Q.)
co..c
Q.)-c
..c Q.)
o C
..ctt::
s~
.
(1.)
:J
-c
-+-'
en
o
u .
-+-'
(1.) en
en 0
CO U
(1.) CD
'- '-
u ro
.~ u
cn..c:
CD-+-'
u ro
~ (1.)
..c:
~C)
.- c
() .-
en
CD .C
..c:
I-
m..
c c
.- CI)
~ E
~ ~
o 0 en
u-..
u A.q:
cECI)
.. CI) c
CI) I CI)
~.. m
o ~
-a A.
E ..
ILl!
· What are the accounting
consequences if an employer
in a single-employer or agent
multiple-employer plan fails to
contribute the full amount of
the annual required
contribution?
~ c
0
- --
- ro
CO C>
--
t .c
0
CO ~ca
C. +--UJ
.- a..
-
'- .- 0
..0
0 co -
c
.- 0
-
~ 0> en
- C c
- Q)
0 :;::; Q.
..c c --
-0 ::J Q)
~ 0 z
Q) () I
-0 ()
() <x:
c:
c::: :J .
<( ~
c:
~ :J
-
.
Assume for example, that an employer's annual
required contribution for pension benefits is $12,000,
but that the employer contributed only $10,000 of this
amount. In that case, the effect in the government-
wide financial statements would be as follows
Statement of activities $12,000 expense (i.e., annual required contribution)
Statement of net assets $2,000 liability (NPO
· Another issue facing
governments will be the affect
on bond ratings.
· Standard & Poor's views
unfunded liabilities as debt like
in nature. The key to
maintaining stable credit
profile is how we manage this
liability.
tn
c::
o
.-
.....
tn
(1)
~
a
.
TMRS Rate Increase
25% ---
5%
5.62 points, or41% increase. Can be spread
over 8 years. (Avg $182k a year, $1.45 million
total over 8 years)
\
20010
15%
10%
0%
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY20!1
FY2012
FY2013
FY20!4
FY2015
FY2016
\
City Contributions to Health Insurance
" > el"lIlents
Qity . - , '"
..... i ...
% City Pays $ City Pays Monthly Employee's Monthly % City Pays $ City Pays Monthly Employee's Cost
Cost
Plan A -
Bay town 91% Plan A - $450.07 Plan A - $43.04 Calculated into the Employee Amount Family Coverage $229.50
Plan B - $806.00 Plan B - $81.80 Plan B -
Family Coverage - $310.50
Employee & Spouse - 79.2% Employee and Spouse - $584.69 Employee and Spouse - $193.79
Deer Park 92% $358.86 $31 .20 Employee & Children - 82% Employee and Children - $481.13 Employee and Children - $128.86
Family Coverage - 77.3% Family Coverage - $698-98 Family Coverage - $264.94
Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $241.70
Employee and Spouse - $563.96 Employee and Children - $203.12
Friendswood 90% $329.34 Plan A - $36.59 70% Employee and Children - $473.94 Family coverage - $351.41
Plan B - $67.72 Family Coverage - $819.97 Plan B -
Employee and Spouse - $310.22
Employee and Children - $260.71
Family Coverage - $451.06
Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $105.00
Employee and Children - $95.24
Family Coverage - $120.69
Plan A - $14.65 Plan B -
La Porte 85% $649.42 Plan B - $22.70 Calculated into the Employee Amount Employee and Spouse - $130.34
Plan C - $50.23 Employee and children - $120.07
Family Coverage - 155.60
Plan C -
Employee and Spouse - $165.74
Employee and Children - $155.15
Family Coverage - $185.32
Employee and Spouse - $282.66 Employee and Spouse - $141 .33
League City 100% $513.08 $0.00 50% Employee and Children - $234 Employee and Children - $117.00
Family Coverage - $504.92 Family coverage - $252.46
City
Missouri City
Pasadena
Pearland*
Seabrook
% City Pays
100%
100%
100%
$ City Pays Monthly
$598.83
$960.00
$348.98
$413.62
City Contributions to Health Insurance
Employee's Monthly
Cost
% City Pays
Plan A - $0.00
Plan B - $30.00
0%
Plan A - $89.00
Plan B - $10.00
$ City Pays Monthly
$0.00
Calculated into the Employee Amount
$0.00
50%
$0.00
50%
Employe and Spouse - $540.91
Employee and Children - 488.56
Family Coverage - 663.54
Employee and Spouse - $569.62
Employee and Children - $500.62
Family Coverage - $638.62
Employee's Cost
Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $142.00
Employee and children - $94.00
Family Coverage - $238.00
Plan B -
Employee and Spouse - $198.00
Employee and children - $136.00
Family Coverage - $312.00
Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $260.00
Employee and Children - $194.00
Family Coverage - $371.00
Plan B -
Employee and Spouse - $111.00
Employee and Children - $66.00
Family Coverage - $162.00
Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $265.76
Employee and Children - $202.87
Family Coverage - $413.10
Plan B -
Employee and Spouse - $191.93
Employee and Children - $139.59
Family Coverage - $314.56
Employee and Spouse - $284.81
Employee and Children - $250.31
Family Coverage - $319.31
City Contributions to Health Insurance
Iy
% City Pays $ City Pays Monthly Employee's Monthly % City Pays $ City Pays Monthly Employee's Cost
Cost
Plan A - Plan A -
Employee and Spouse - $506.00 Employee and Spouse - $120.73
Employee and Children - $338.76 Employee and Children - $79.29
Family Coverage - $529.80 Family Coverage - $174.80
Plan A - $360.42 Plan A - $0.00 Plan B - Plan B -
Sugar Land 100% Plan B - 339.39 Plan B - $0.00 50% - 60% Employee and Spouse - $169.70 Employee and Spouse - $86.31
Plan C - 469.68 Plan C - $20.00 Employee and Children - $315.35 Employee and Children - $59.75
Family Coverage - $481.40 Family Coverage - $126.17
Plan C - Plan C -
Employee and Spouse - $549.53 Employee and Spouse - $240.28
Employee and Children - $441.50 Employee and Children - $164.67
Family Coverage - $690.44 Family Coverage - $338.92
Texas City 100% $0.00 50%
Employee and Spouse - $818.18 Employee and Spouse - $56.00
Webster 100% $397.06 $0.00 94% Employee and Children - $694.65 Employee and Children - $40.00
Employee and Family - $1199.03 Family Coverage - $72.00
*Pearland is planning to move to the City paying 70% for dependent coverage by October.
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
La Porte is a growing community, with an approximate population of
almost 32,000 in 2001, and is projected to reach a population of almost
43,000 over the next 20 years. La Porte is surrounded by the cities of
Deer Park, Pasadena, Baytown, Morgans Point, Shoreacres, Seabrook,
the Battleground and Bayport Industrial Districts; it takes about 30
minutes to get from La Porte to downtown Houston.
La Porte serves certain recreational needs for some of these
communities within a 10 to 15 mile radius, having one of the best parks
systems in the area coupled with some special attractions, such as
Sylvan Beach Park, the Wave Pool in Little Cedar Bayou Park and the
very popular La Porte Recreation and Fitness Center.
La Porte is also located directly on Galveston Bay and has direct access
to the port at the Barbour's Cut ship channel in Morgans Point, and
Sylvan Beach Park. It is home to many businesses as well as residential
areas, recreational areas, and infrastructure such as schools, shops,
restaurants, etc.
1.2 La Porte History
In 1891, La Porte was founded as one of the first cities in today's Harris
County. The name La Porte means "The Door" in French and was meant
to depict La Porte's function as a doorway to Galveston Bay and the Gulf
of Mexico. With the help of some developers and their investments and
marketing strategies, the area became hugely popular in the late 1890s -
property was even sold at the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago. With the
development of a railroad line, many Houstonians built their summer
homes in La Porte, and soon there were several hotels to accommodate
the new visitors.
The new city of La Porte was thriving on tourism and Sylvan Beach Park
was the center of attention, and from 1897 on, there were "Moonlight
Excursions" from Houston to the Sylvan Beach Hotel for 50~ each, ever
increasing La Porte's reputation as the "playground of the south".
The founding of Humble Oil and Refining Company (Exxon) brought
many jobs to La Porte after the first big oil strike at Goose Creek Field in
1916. Tourism to La Porte and Sylvan Beach flourished until World War
II, which was when the town began to change:
CHAPTER' - INTRODUCTION
PAGE I
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
During the war, there were two big shipyards in the La Porte area, producing vessels
with about 100,000 employees working shifts and keeping the local economy going.
But after the war and a devastating hurricane in 1943, there was not much money to
rebuild the destroyed attractions on Sylvan Beach; because of the now increased
mobility of its inhabitants, many smaller La Porte businesses could no longer
compete with bigger retailers outside the city; air conditioning made the Galveston
Bay breeze obsolete for most Houstonians, so the whole tourism industry as well as
the local economy decreased very quickly until 1960.
In 1961, the opening of NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and the vast
expansion of chemical and petrochemical plants in the area around Baytown and La
Porte in the following years led to a huge increase of population, which culminated in
the 1970s and 1980s and big infrastructure improvements, such as SH 225 and the
Fred Hartman Bridge crossing to Baytown.
1.3 La Porte Economy
Today, La Porte is well known for its industrial reputation rather than tourism, the city
being home to over 360 businesses (data derived from 1997 Economic Census). The
top five categories among these are Retail Trade, Accommodation and Food,
Professional I Scientific I Technical, Wholesale Trade and Manufacturing. Overall,
this corresponds with the general trend in surrounding communities and Harris
County as a whole, except for the somewhat higher representation of
Accommodation and Food Service related businesses; this might reflect a higher
number of visitors still coming to La Porte today.
1.4 La Porte Living
Because of all the employment possibilities from the petrochemical sector in the
area, the supporting businesses, NASA and the local port, there are many residents
living in La Porte. About 49% (data derived from 1999 La Porte Comprehensive
Update) of all developed acreage in La Porte is single family or multi family
residential - certain areas in town have a large amount of single-family homes that
have been owned by the same family for several generations.
La Porte has several elementary and junior high schools as well a local high school,
and can take pride in one of the best parks and recreation systems in the Clear Lake
area. La Porte currently has twelve public neighborhood parks plus several more that
are run by homeowner's associations, five community parks with a sixth currently
being designed, and two regional parks within city limits - San Jacinto Battleground
State Park north of SH 225 and Armand Bayou park in Pasadena are two more
regional assets frequented by many locals. Other popular facilities are Bay Forest
Golf Course, the La Porte Recreation and Fitness Center and Special Programs
Center, the Senior Services Center, the Lomax Rodeo Arena and the Sylvan Beach
Pavilion - this facility can be rented for all kinds of social events.
Benefits of living in La Porte were noted in the Comprehensive Plan as being the
.proximity to the bay and its available activities, e.g. fishing, boating, etc.", the "small
town atmosphere with proximity to a major metropolitan area", and the "blend of
people and the friendliness of the community".
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
PAGE 2
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1.5 La Porte Transportation
La Porte is linked to the Cities of Baytown, Pasadena, Deer Park and Houston with
SH 225; this is also the corridor with the biggest daily traffic volume in La Porte, with
average daily traffic being about 68,000 vehicles (data derived from 1999 La Porte
Comprehensive Update). Other key traffic corridors to as well as inside the city are
SH 146, South Broadway, Spencer Highway, Fairmont Parkway and Barbours Cut
Boulevard. Most retail and business areas can be found along these roads.
1.6 Related Plans and Studies
Local Plans
The City of La Porte already has several plans that address the issue of trails and
walkways, each with specific goals:
The La Porte Comprehensive Plan was originally created in 1984, and updated in
1994 and 1999. It outlines a specific community vision for the year 2020 and states
goals, objectives, policies and actions to realize this vision. Some of the trail-related
goals and objectives stated in the 1999 update are:
. "Establish and maintain a network of new and existing sidewalks as a component
of improved standards for city streets"
. "Provide a means of safe pedestrian crossing of major thoroughfares and other
streets with high traffic volumes"
. "Cooperate with neighboring communities to establish interurban modes of
transportation"
. "Pursue alternate modes of transportation...Consider construction of a
comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle system to serve both recreational and
alternative transportation needs."
. "Study local bus-service"
The City of La Porte Parks and Open Space Master Plan 2002 is the most recently
completed document dealing with the issue of trails, and has a separate chapter
entirely devoted to this matter. Goals of importance for the bicycle and pedestrian
trail implementation plan generally include:
. "Every new facility built over the next five years should include a trail component,
so as to lay the foundation for a citywide network of trails"
. "Develop a network of pedestrian and bicycle ways for hiking, jogging, and
cycling throughout the La Porte area, including an interconnected system of
paths, trails, lanes, and routes that are multipurpose, accessible, convenient and
connect to residential neighborhoods, parks, schools, workplaces, shopping,
major open spaces, and other destinations"
. "Create and preserve green belt linkages of parks, open spaces, drainage ways,
irrigation canals, bikeways, path and natural areas throughout the city" - criteria
for or ranking potential corridors are the access to schools and parks, potential
trail connections, percent of public ownership or potential for partnership as well
as the scenic quality and the future popUlation growth in the particular area.
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
PAGE J
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. "Provide the opportunity for non-motorized travel from home to recreation,
school, shopping, work or visiting friends"
. "At least 3 to 6+ miles of additional trails are recommended.... The citywide
network will serve both recreation and transportation needs... Other trails should
be developed opportunistically as land is developed." - La Porte has internal
paths in some of its parks, however no trails currently exist which provide access
between neighborhoods or to La Porte's parks and schools.
Additional goals mentioned in these plans also are considered an important base for
developing this implementation plan:
. "Establish and maintain bird sanctuary areas that will enhance and maintain bird
life, promote birding activity, and develop eco-tourism"
. "Improve streetscape by adding... street lights, benches, and landscaping and
other amenities"
. "Establish proper funding to insure appropriate levels of staffing and maintenance
to protect the recreational investment of the residents of La Porte"
. "Develop gateways and scenic corridors into and through the community to
establish a first impression and create a recognizable identity for La Porte."
This long range Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan identifies a
citywide network of trails and possible connections to neighboring communities,
including additional park trails, connection trails, hike & bike trails, equestrian trails
and nature trails. On-street connectors, consisting of sidewalks, and - where
warranted - wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic, will be the only choice
in a few cases to provide system continuity.
In a citizen telephone survey conducted as part of the Parks and Open Space Master
Plan, 93% of La Porte residents supported or strongly supported the construction of
pedestrian and bicycle trails, while only 3% opposed or strongly opposed it; wit-h 55%
of all respondents saying they engaged in hiking as one of their favorite activities.
Other plans of interest (regional, state, national etc.)
Trail design must reflect the needs of its intended users. Two publications produced
by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, a statewide leader in trail
planning and design, can provide essential information for the design and
management of La Porte trails: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Planning and
Design Guidelines and the Trinity Trails Management Guide. The former focuses
predominately on transportation oriented facilities, while the latter is aimed at
recreational facilities.
Two other relevant local publications are the Houston Bikeway Program from 1997
and the Transportation Improvement Program 2000-2002 issued by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council (HGAC) in 1999. Also, HGAC has issued a Regional Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan Executive Summary in 1996; a follow-up to this document is a
work in progress.
Helpful state and national publications for this plan could be the Guidelines for
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas by ITI (1997), the USDOT Transportation
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
PAGE 4
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAil IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Planning Handbook (namely chapter 16 - "Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities"), and
two more case-related studies with useful general suggestions: "Improving
Conditions for Bicycling and Walking", created by the Rails-to- Trails Conservancy
and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals for the Federal Highway
Administration (1998); and "Creating Walkable Communities", by the Bicycle
Federation of America (1998).
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
PAGE 5
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
USER NEEDS
3. 1 Needs Assessment
A needs assessment is a valuable tool in channeling interests of different
user groups of a trail system, and comparing those interests with
recreational standards and the current situation in La Porte.
Another important function of this assessment is the possibility to support
requests for grants or other funding with statistically valid information and
established quantities of future needs, incorporating these needs in a
long-term implementation and expenditure plan.
Compared to other Texas cities with similar population, La Porte is
relatively compact and in parts closely developed. It has many possible
trail destinations evenly spread out within its city limits, many of those
being within residential areas, such as schools and parks.
Therefore the proposed multi-trail system is not only anticipated to be
used recreationally, but to serve as a welcome means for alternate
modes of commute as well. It is expected that walking, hiking, bicycling
and getting from home to schools and parks will be the most popular
activities on the system; other uses such as jogging, skateboarding, in-
line skating, or riding a non-motorized scooter will very probably be
increasingly popular as well, especially on sections within parks or
residential areas.
Separate specialty trails that are possible within the system as well, like
horseback riding or mountain biking trails, will be discussed further
below, when considering public input and other factors.
3.2 General Needs
La Porte's 2005 population is estimated to be 35,200, and projected to
be over 42,600 by the year 2020. Key population characteristics that
impact trails are as follows (taken from the 2002 Parks and Open Space
Master Plan):
· La Porte's population is relatively young by statewide standards, and
trails and pedestrian connections are especially important as a
means of providing safe routes to area schools, parks and recreation
facilities.
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE I
fj"
i ·
..-
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. The climate in La Porte favors year round walking, and for many of the adult
residents of the city, walking or hiking is their preferred form of recreation.
. La Porte's population also includes a significant number of older residents and
visitors who live in or near the city during the winter months. These visitors are
highly interested in walking as a means of recreation and staying fit, and are
also active bicycle riders if provided with a safe place to ride bicycles.
. Trail users of different ages will have different capabilities, skills, and stamina. In
addition, individuals with special needs, who might require support devices, will
have different requirements as well. Typical skills of these different groups
(derived from the TTI Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities) are listed
below:
_ Children, especially younger ones, are generally developing their motor and
perceptual skills. These include awareness and direction of sounds,
peripheral vision, concentration levels, and understanding of traffic dangers
and other hazards.
_ Adults. usually meaning individuals from the high-school years through
retirement, represent a significant portion of the population. In general,
individuals in this age group have good walking skills and abilities, but adult
bicyclists have a wide variation in skill and strength, and great differences in
their self-assessment of skills.
_ Senior Citizens may begin to experience slower reaction times, as well as
declines in walking speed, agility, eyesight, stamina, and sense of balance.
_ Individuals with special needs may be persons with sight or hearing
problems, as well as those needing wheelchairs, canes, or other assistance.
Individuals with special needs may experience difficulties using certain types
of trails or pedestrian facilities.
3.3 Recreational Needs
The La Porte trail system will allow residents and visitors to get some exercise
according to their preferences as well as connecting them to friends and neighboring
communities; some of the trails with a more naturalistic character will add to the
variety of offered recreational possibilities. All previously mentioned age groups are
likely to use trails for recreational use, but needs are different for each group.
Typical recreational factors are:
. The three most common recreational activities on trails are
- exercise,
- trips to get to a specific point of leisure interest - parks, the bayou etc., or
- trips for their own sake, such as walking events etc..
. For recreational purposes, scenic qualities, offering an aesthetic factor that
enhances the experience, are more important than direct connection between
points of interest.
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEOS
PAGE 2
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. Instead of coming back the same way from a point of interest, alternate routes
are preferred with recreational trail users.
. Supplemental facilities for resting, such as rest areas and benches, are usually
more important to recreational users than other user groups. Exercisers prefer to
have mile markers, drinking fountains and fitness equipment along a trail.
. Trails predominantly used for recreational activity are usually required to be
wider due to the various user groups, in order to avoid conflicts, e.g. between
bicyclists and skaters on a multi~use trail.
3.4 Commuter Needs
Needs for commuters, both walking and using alternate means of transportation, are
different from those of recreation seekers. Commuters try to get from one destination
to another in a reasonable amount of time with few delays. Typical groups of
commuters are adults traveling to work, children going to school, and people of all
age groups running errands. Typical commuting factors are listed below:
. Major commuting destinations are
- Businesses I offices,
- Schools,
- Retail Centers and similar areas within city limits, and
- Points of interest in neighboring cities.
. The most commonly used mode of transportation when commuting on trails is by
bicycle, but walking and skating or using a scooter should also be considered.
. Trip length for commuters is variable, but can reach up to several miles.
. Trail commuters mostly travel at the same rush-hour times as other traffic, which
implements more possible conflicts with other traffic parties.
. Commuters usually prefer the route that takes them to their destination most
directly, with as few stops as possible.
. Safety for bicyclists is a major issue in commuter trails, especially when the trails
are shared roadways or striped only; but other factors such as weather (e.g.
slippery roads), lighting conditions and intersections or trail junctions are also
important concerns especially for this generally faster traveling group of trail
users.
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE .5
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
3.5 Standards Based Needs
The needs assessment in the 2002 Parks and Open Space Master Plan shows goals
for trails as well as parks and open spaces that are based on national guidelines and
standards based on demographic trends.
· The standards for linear parks and linkage parks are variable, but for the City of
La Porte a target standard of 1-2 acres per 1000 population was defined for the
Master Plan. A lot of the time, this acreage is included in the goal for open space,
which is set at 5-10 acres per 1000 population.
. The Plan also establishes a goal of 1 to 2 miles of trail for every 10,000 residents
of the city.
This standard results in a current need for 3 to 6 miles of trail. Currently, the city has
less than 2 miles of existing trails, which are all within parks and do not serve to link
destinations.
3.6 Needs based on Prior Citizen Input
All the information mentioned above is based on general knowledge and trends; to
mold these guidelines to meet the specific needs and expectations of the citizens of
La Porte, Raymond Turco and Associates conducted a telephone survey in 2001
during the creation of the Parks and Open Space Master Plan. This survey included
several trail specific questions, which are analyzed in more detail below. Halff
Associates also conducted interviews with key personnel from the City of La Porte
and a public meeting to gather further input for the master plan. Trails were an
important subject discussed in this meeting, the summary of which is also addressed
later in this chapter.
These are the trail-related findings from the more general section in the first part of
the survey:
· Most popular trail-related activities mentioned in the survey were walking or
hiking (55%), walking pets (25%), and biking (25%).
· The importance of new jogging and biking trails was rated third among
recommendations for additional facilities by 82% of the respondents.
· In an open-ended follow-up question, jogging / biking trails were considered the
second most important item to be constructed, and also the second most popular
item for a newly built park.
· 87% of all respondents supported the development of additional hike and bike
trails as a future capital improvement for the city.
The more specifically trail-related sections of the survey were as follows:
The need for expanding the city's trails was evaluated in three ways - rate of support
for specific features of a city-wide trail network, a summary question to prioritize the
key features wanted in any trail system, and presentation of a series of opinions
about existing trails.
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE 4
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
· Table 3.1 below summarizes the percentages in each of the 9 possible answer
categories for specific features among all respondents:
Table 3.1 - Overall Support or Opposition to Citywide Trail System Uses
STRONGLY SUPPORT OPPOSE STRONGLY NO SUPPORT
SUPPORT OPPOSE OPINION RATIO
Horseback ridina 16% 49% 29% 2% 5% 2.1:1
Recreational walkina or hikina 28% 65% 6% 0% 1% 15.5:1
Recreational bicvclina 27% 65% 7% 0% 1% 13.1:1
Nature trail 29% 63% 7% 0% 1% 13.1:1
Inline skatina 11% 54% 31% 1% 4% 2.0:1
Mountain bikina 11% 56% 28% 1% 4% 2.3:1
Widen some thoroughfares for
bike lanes 19% 58% 18% 2% 4% 3.9:1
Ridina to eet to work or a store 14% 57% 24% 1% 4% 2.8:1
Connections to nearby schools 20% 67% 11% 0% 2% 7.9:1
The top three trail system uses were recreational walking or hiking, recreational
bicycling, and nature trail, each with 93% total support - strong support was highest
for these criteria as well. Connections to nearby schools were almost as popular with
87%. All other possible items were also supported by the majority of respondents (all
65% or higher); and strong opposition for most items was rather low (1-2%): The
strongest being against inline skating, horseback riding and mountain biking.
However, these percentages are relatively insignificant in comparison to the overall
support for these items.
· Support for the various possible features was different for respondents with
children as compared to non-parents, and the age of the children made a
difference within the group of parents. Reactions to trail features among the
parental subgroups are compared in Table 3.2:
Table 3.2 - Support or Opposition to Citywide Trail System Uses by Age of
Respondent's Children
NO CHILDREN AGES UNDER 6 AGES 7-12
SUPPT OPPOS SUPPT OPPOS SUPPT OPPOS
Horseback ridina 57% 36% 78% 20% 73% 21%
Recreational walkina or hikina 91% 7% 98% 2% 94% 6%
Recreational bicvclinCl 90% 9% 96% 3% 93% 7%
Nature trail 91% 8% 98% 2% 92% 8%
Inline skatina 56% 40% 78% 21% 74% 23%
Mountain bikinCl 55% 37% 85% 15% 77% 21%
Widen some thoroughfares for
bike lanes 69% 25% 88% 12% 85% 14%
Ridina to oet to work or a store 64% 29% 87% 13% 70% 28%
Connections to nearby schools 84% 12% 95% 3% 86% 13%
Non-parents had the lowest percentages favoring each item, while parents of young
children had the highest. Among the subgroups with children, parents of 0-6 year-
olds also demonstrated significantly higher support than older parental groups for
CHAPTER :3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE 5
-.
€ .
~...
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
mountain biking, riding to get to work or a store, and connections to nearby schools.
Although parents of teenagers generally showed lower support than parents of pre-
teens, they were more inclined to support non-recreational trail purposes, including
riding to get to work or a store.
. Following the ratings of individual features, the respondents were asked the
question "Regarding a trail system in La Porte, which of the following is most
important to you and your family?" to determine priority in the previously
presented 9 features, and additionally give the options of "no opinion" or
"opposed to trails in La Porte".
- The top two voted considerations by the respondents overall were allowing
for recreational walking or hiking (30%), and connecting to nearby schools
(21%).
- The ratings slightly differ when looking at certain groups of respondents:
- People satisfied with parks and recreational quality and park visitors generally
prioritized walking or hiking over connectivity, and also showed a greater than
average interest in nature trails.
- Non-parents and parents of teenagers listed walking and hiking before the
connectivity of trails, but parents of young children and pre-teens found
connectivity more important.
· After prioritizing the different possible trail uses, respondents were presented
with several opinionated statements about existing trails. Respondents could
express satisfaction or dissatisfaction by expressing the degree to which they
identified with the statements instead of having to volunteer criticism or praise.
Reactions to the statements are summarized in table 3.3:
Table 3.3 - Agreement or Disagreement with Trail-Related Statemnts
STATEMENT STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY NO AGREEMENT
AGREE DISAGREE OPINION RATIO
Trails are close to where I live 4% 23% 47% 21% 6% 0.4:1
Most trails are located around scenic areas 2% 22% 41% 12% 23% 0.5:1
Most trails are wide enough for all different 27% 41% 17% 9% 32% 1.7:1
user types
There is convenient parking or access to 1% 35% 25% 9% 30% . 1.1 :1
the trail
Most trails connect to places I or my 2% 25% 35% 11% 28% 0.6:1
familv wish to ao
As already mentioned in chapter 2.3, La Porte does not have any connector trails
and very few trails inside its parks at this point; the answers to these questions about
existing facilities therefore had relatively high results in the "no opinion" category and
less conclusive answers in general.
Three opinions received significantly higher disagreement than agreement, the
highest dissatisfaction showing at the statement "trails are close to where I live" (68%
disagreed, 27% agreed). Only one statement was clearly agreed to more than
disagreed -"most trails are wide enough for different user types" (46% vs. 26%); the
statement "there is convenient parking or access to the trail" resulted in an only
slightly higher percentage of agreement (36% vs. 34%).
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE 6
-..
t !t
"...
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Both of these results could be explained by the fact that most trails in La Porte are
within the larger parks, which all have parking available; trail use inside these parks
is mostly through pedestrians or smaller children with bicycles or toys - user conflicts
are not really an issue here.
A copy of the sample questionnaire is provided in the Appendix.
In the public meeting, there was an attendance of about 50 residents; after a general
presentation, they voiced their opinions about issues that were important to them.
These are the specifics of trail-related interests:
. The participants were given red and green cards to fill in, the green ones
showing the statement "Things I like or that work well in the La Porte Parks
System", and the red ones having the statement "Things I would like to improve
in the La Porte Parks System".
87 of the green cards were returned, but only 78 were counted as valid; partially
because interestingly, some of the people who had filled in all of their red cards
used the green ones to ask for trails again - this happened in 6 cases. There
was only one positive remark about trails in La Porte: "The park in Glenmeadows
has come a long way - the walking trail is great".
The participants returned 89 red cards - all valid, and the item wished for most
by far was construction of trails (26 cards, that is 29% of the total returned; not
counting the "stray" green ones); the next most popular items, maintenance,
pavilions/picniclBBQ, and parking only yielding 6 cards each.
. After filling out the cards, participants were asked to place dots on a board with
typical park facilities, choosing the ones they found most important. Participation
in this activity was high with 98 valid placements. The two favorite items were
pavilions / picnic areas (18 dots), and hiking / biking trails (17 dots).
· With their initial package, the participants were handed a comment sheet with
two questions: "What additional park facilities do you think are most needed in La
Porte?" and "Please feel free to add any comments regarding the existing parks
in La Porte or ideas for the proposed Park Master Plan".
Of 33 returned sheets, at least 27 had one of the two questions answered - there
were 28 requests for different types of trails or trails systems, far more than for
any other category discussed in this meeting.
· Examples of typical comments derived from all the tools used by the participants
are shown below, some of which were more general, but some were already
quite specific, considering that this was before publication of the Parks and Open
Space Master Plan:
- "Old Highway 146 ... is a very dangerous highway and many people walk
there to get to the fitness center and pool. ... Is there something going to
happen?"
- "I n California, trails connect all the parks with each other, maybe something
like that would be possible here"
- "Can La Porte work with entities such as Harris County or developers ... to
build and maintain trails?"
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE 7
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
- "We need a walking trail to connect the (Rodeo) arena area and the
Community Park"
- "The talk is always about 'expansion' of trails and bike paths. Well, there are
no paths or trails that I know about. We need to develop safe and abundant
paths for all neighborhoods."
- "La Porte needs a bike trail"
- "I like the idea of trails connecting neighborhoods in the city. Bike riding on
our streets like Broadway is dangerous."
- "There are not any really desirable parks to walk at in La Porte parks system
- even if one is willing to drive - Glen Meadows is not attractive."
- "I would like to see La Porte work with other entities, so nearby communities
and our local parks can be linked together."
- "I would like more trails for walking"
- "Our non-existent trail system needs to connect Old La Porte, Fairmont,
Lomax etc. without being run over by cars"
- "We need bike and horseback riding trails as well as walking lanes that can
be used for... kids to walk their animals and avoid speeding vehicles"
As another effort to gather La Porte-specific input, a questionnaire was sent out in
2001 to all the local Sports Associations. None of the returned questionnaires
contained any trail-related comments or requests; therefore their input was not
considered for this study.
,-
3.6 Projected Uses for the new Trail System
The La Porte Trail System will serve several different purposes, as explained above.
In order to gain a more specific understanding of the projected amount of usage,
estimates have been made that are based on demographic aspects, applicable
recreational studies and the given specifics for this location.
Destinations
There are different types of possible destinations along the trails, the two biggest
groups being recreational destinations and commuting destinations.
Most people will visit recreational destinations alongside trails for exercise and / or
fun, getting there on foot, by bicycle, or other forms of non-motorized vehicle. Points
of interest in La Porte include the local parks - especially Sylvan Beach, civic
centers, the city-operated Fitness Center, bayous, Main Street / Historic District, La
Porte Railroad Depot Museum, and Bay Forest Municipal Golf Course. Outside of
the city limits are Armand Bayou, Bay Area Park, San Jacinto Monument State Park
and other attractions, requiring a travel of up to 5 to 20 miles roundtrip.
Commuting destinations are more likely to be reached from shorter distances: In
"Development of a Methodology to Estimate Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Demand"
by TII (1998), it is shown in several tables that the majority of lengths for work-based
bicycle trips are between 1 and 6 miles, and school-based bicycle trips have the
highest distribution between 1 and 3 miles per trip, whereas trip lengths for
recreational purposes have a much broader range spectrum (up to 10 miles or
CHAPTER :5 - USER NEEDS
PAGE 8
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
more). Pedestrian trips are shorter in both categories, having their highest
percentage below 2.5 miles per trip.
Copies of these tables are provided in the Appendix.
Trails will serve as alternate possibilities to congested roadways to facilitate travel at
peak hours and on major thoroughfares. Destinations for commuters will include
schools, commercial areas (e.g. Fairmont Parkway and Main Street), industrial areas
like Barbours Cut Terminal and Bayport industrial district, the city library, San Jacinto
College and hospitals in Pasadena.
Use Projections
The potential recreational uses for the new trail system can be estimated in a
number of ways, one of which is by creating trip generation rates according to land
use in a certain target area (see TTI: "Development of a Methodology to Estimate
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Demand", 1998):
For example, area types like suburban, mixed-use urban or dense I special use
areas all create different amounts of probable pedestrian or bicycle trips. The
numbers of daily trips usually increase with the density of land use - with a higher
concentration of people in one area, possible destinations become more likely to be
in closer proximity, and parking usually becomes limited.
Tables 3.4 and 3.5, showing trip generation rates for different area and land use
types, are provided below:
Table 3.4 - Bicycle Trip Generation Rates for
Different Area and Land Use Types
Daily Bi ::vcle Trip Generation Rate
land Use Type Suburban Mixed-Use Urban Dense or
Special Use
single-family residential 0.6 trips per 100 3 trips per 1 00 5 trips per 1 00
dwelling units dwellinQ units dwelling units
multi-family residential 0.2 trips per 100 2 trips per 100 4 trips per 1 00
dwellinQ units dwellinQ units dwelling units
university/college 0.5 trip per 1,000 2 trips per 1,000 6 trips per 1,000
full-time students full-time students full-time students
commercial 4 trips per million 8 trips per million 12 trips per million
sq. ft. GLA sq. ft. GLA sq. ft. GLA
Table 3.5 - Pedestrian Trip Generation Rates for
Different Area and Land Use Types
Daily Pedestrian Trip Generation Rate
land Use Type Suburban Mixed-Use Urban Dense or
Special Use
single-family residential 0.5 trip per 100 1 trip per 100 2 trips per 100
dwellinQ units dwelling units dwellinQ units
multi-family residential 1 trip per 100 2 trips per 100 4 trips per 100
dwelling units dwellinQ units dwelling units
university/college 0.3 trip per 1,000 1 trip per 1,000 2 trips per 1,000
full-time students full-time students full-time students
commercial 5 trips per million 10 trips per million 20 trips per million
sq. ft. GLA SQ. ft. GLA sq. ft. GLA
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEOS
PAGE 9
-.
a ..
~...
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Another important factor for projections is the general tendency of Americans
towards certain forms of recreation, which is shown here as derived from the
National Survey of Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) conducted in
1994/1995. People over age 15 were asked about their participation in 62 specific
recreation activities, and the percentage of Americans participating in some very
popular trail-related activities is shown below:
· Overall participation in outdoor recreation included 189 Million Americans, which
was 94.5% of the population in 1994.
· Walking: 134 Million, 67% - being single most popular activity.
. Day Hiking: 47.8 Million, 24%
· Bicycling: 57.4 Million, 29%
· Running / Jogging: 52.5 Million, 26%
. Wildlife Viewing: 62.6 Million, 31%
Other trends to be taken into account are non-motorized or electric scooters, in-line
skates, and skateboards as further modes of recreational transportation. These were
not yet taken into account for the NSRE study, but are already becoming strong
factors for increased future trail use.
In the study, there were several more highly popular outdoor activities that don't take
place on trails directly, but also will probably increase trail use:
· Activities with over 100 Million participants (except walking, see above) were
visiting a beach, gathering outdoors with the family, and sightseeing.
· Activities with 60 to 99 million participants include picnicking, visiting a nature
center, visiting a historic site, playing yard games, attending sporting events,
outdoor pool swimming, other outdoor swimming, and visiting a visitor center.
The next groups of factors that help predict future use levels are demographics and
other La Porte-specific demands:
· The public demand for trails in La Porte is very high, as can be seen from the
various means of public input - see chapter 3.5 and the Parks and Open Space
Master Plan.
· The number of La Porte's population is expected to increase in the next ten years
- see chapter 3.2 -, so the number of potential trail users is likely to increase as
well.
· Age groups projected to use La Porte's future trail system based on the current
local aQe distribution are as follows:
- Under 15 years: 25%
- 15-24 years: 15%
- 25-34 years: 15%
- 35-44 years: 20%
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE /0
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
- 45-54 years: 15%
- 55+ years: 10%
. La Porte's weather statistics show that outdoor- and trail activities are favored
almost year-round:
_ The coldest months are December, January and February, with the average
mean temperature being in the low fifties - the La Porte area is well visited by the
so called "snowbirds": winter tourists coming south from the colder northern
states.
_ The hottest months with possibly lower amounts of outdoor recreation are June,
July and August, the mean average temperature then being 81-83 degrees
Fahrenheit. But this time also coincides with school summer break, so the level
of use will be somewhat higher than expected despite the heat.
_ The months with the statistically highest rainfall, above six inches, are June
through September, and December I January; La Porte is assumed to have an
average of 101 rain days (0.01 inches or above) annually, being figured in the
middle between Houston (106 days) and Galveston (96 days). Since even
smallest amounts of rainfall account for a full rain day, it can be assumed that
trails will still be partly used on such days.
The final set of factors to be considered here shall be the characteristics of potential
trail users:
. The average distance that trail users are willing to cover to get to a trail strongly
depends on their mode of transport to the trails. The area of influence for a cyclist
usually extends to two to three miles beyond each side of the trail, creating a four
to six mile-wide corridor. For pedestrians, the walking distance to a trail is limited
to about half a mile to one mile in each direction, rendering the resulting corridor
one to two miles wide, respectively (see TTI: "Development of a Methodology to
Estimate Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Demand", 1998). The maximum distance
of travel by car to a trail or trailhead is hard to predict and mostly depends on
how attractive the trail is to the visitor. But studies from other trail systems show
that seemingly only few people are inclined to travel further than 5 miles or even
10 miles to reach a trail (see Lindsey, Greg: "A Note on the Use of Urban
Greenways", 1998).
. The amount of trail use varies during the week or even the day; recreation
studies show that peak times for all outdoor activities are at lunchtime and after 4
pm on weekdays, and most of the day on weekends, the peak hours here being
from 10 am to 4 pm. Generally it can be said that about 60% of outdoor
recreation takes place during the week, and the remaining 40% during the
weekend - not regarding special characteristics of user groups, such as sex,
age, race etc.. This results in a ratio of 1.7 times the use on a weekend day
compared to a weekday. (see Lindsey, 1998; and Scott, David: "Exploring Time
Patterns in People's Use of a Metropolitan Park District", Leisure Sciences 19
(3),1997, p. 159-174).
. With La Porte being surrounded by industrial districts to the north and south, and
Galveston Bay to the east, it can be assumed that most of the potential trail users
will come from La Porte and Shoreacres, plus some from the neighboring
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE"
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
communities of Deer Park and Pasadena, or possibly from Morgans Point or
Seabrook. So instead of estimating an additional number of users from other
cities and ruling out a number of inactive persons in La Porte, it shall be assumed
for this simplified estimation that all citizens of La Porte are potential trail users.
Considering all the factors mentioned above, certain assumptions could be made to
calculate use projections for the future trail system:
1. Due to La Porte's compact size, almost all of the city's area lies within an
eligible trail corridor; for simplification of this estimate, the current population
of 31,880 (derived from Census 2000 data) shall be the base number of
possible trail users - instead of including persons from neighboring cities and
excluding possible inactive persons in La Porte.
2. The main season for trail use is estimated to be 264 days (188 weekdays, 76
weekend days), deducting 101 rain / slow days (74 weekdays, 27 weekend
days). Use on rain I slow days shall be estimated at 50% of regular use on 50
days (36 weekdays, 14 weekend days) in September, December, and
January, and at 30% of regular use on another 51 days (37 weekdays, 14
weekend days) in June, July and August because of the additional heat
factor.
3. Nationwide, about 2% of employed adults commute to work on foot or by
bicycle. In La Porte, there are 16,601 employed citizens (Census 2000), of
which 1.1 % walk, and 1.4% use "other means". It therefore can be assumed,
that a 2% total of pedestrian and bicycle commuters for La Porte is adequate,
resulting in a number of 332 adults. This number is expected to increase by a
multiple factor as trail systems in La Porte and surrounding communities are
being completed.
4. In La Porte, there are ten schools within city limits, plus San Jacinto College
in Pasadena in the immediate vicinity. Six of these schools will be tied directly
into the future trail system, resulting in a simplified assumption of 60% of all
enrolled students having the possibility to get to school on trails. The current
number of students currently enrolled in La Porte is 9,618, of which 8,474 are
in first grade in Elementary school or above and can therefore be considered
trail users. Further assuming that about a third of these students (20%
overall) will use the trail system when finished, this adds 1,695 commuters.
Table 3.6 on the following page shows an estimate of possible trail use, incorporating
the above assumptions.
It should be noted, however, that a vast majority of users will not be traveling the
whole length of a trail or even a segment, and that peak time users will not meet at
the same point of the trail system - even though there are some segments that are
more likely to become crowded than others. Also, the number of peak days might be
a bit lower than the statistical 264 days in reality, since not everybody who uses the
trails during peak season will do so daily.
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE /2
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Table 3.6 - Estimate of Possible Trail Use
24 4,591 18 29
29 5,547 21 35
26 4,973 19 32
31 5,930 23 38
130 215
56,428 33,857 22,571 24,488 16,325
24 847 6 4 4 3
29 9,245 1,023 8 5 5 3
26 8,289 1,376 917 7 5 4 3
31 9,883 1,641 1,094 8 5 5 3
46 31 28 19
56,428 9,369 6,246 1,670 433 1,030 260
2 332
20 1,695
2,027
CHAPTER 3 - USER NEEDS
PAGE /3
,-
CITY Of LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTA TION
6. 1 Introduction
The La Porte Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan will serve
as an initial guide for building and maintaining the La Porte trail system
for the next 20 years.
Therefore, a priority schedule with short-term, mid-term and long-term
projects needs to be determined, making it possible for the City of La
Porte to plan ahead for budgeting and funding strategies for each project.
This schedule may change according to available funds, changing
priorities, other roadway projects that coincide, a shift in public interests
or other factors
To keep track of these possible changes, it is recommended to review
this implementation plan with the local Parks and Recreation and
Planning and Engineering departments on a regular basis and make
additions to keep it as up to date as possible. This is important, because
many funding sources require a current trail implementation plan, the
priority schedule of which is being followed as adopted - to prove the
community's commitment to the local trail system.
6.2 Prioritization
All suggested trail projects, which were introduced in Chapter 4, were
ranked on a scoring system based on different criteria:
. Connectivity: Points for each important destination reached by a trail
segment.
. Possible Use: Points for locations along or route of a trail segment
that makes it more likely to receive higher usage.
. Ease of Construction: Points for trail segments that are inexpensive
or unproblematic to build, can be part of an already targeted or
started construction effort or that can be built using existing city
supplies or assets.
. Scenic quality: Points for trail segments with aesthetical value, little
interference from other traffic and few intersections.
. Public Demand: Points for trails that are in high demand and strongly
supported by the citizens, or are in areas where no opposition is
expected.
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE I
CITY OF LA
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
See table 6.1 at the end of this chapter for the scoring of each trail segment.
Following the scoring system, all trails were categorized as High, Medium, or Long-
Term Priority.
High Priority
Projects that received the most points are meant for short-term project
implementation - they are targeted to be started, or even completed, within the next
five years. The high priority projects for La Porte are:
1 - Pasadena Connector
3 - Big Island Slough
8 - Souths ide Trail
12 - T.1. E. Park Trail
13 - Bay Forest Trail
Medium Priority
These are mid-term projects that are planned for implementation in six to ten years.
They add to and complement the first set of completed projects:
4 - Northwest Trail
6 - Railroad Trail
9 - Bayside Trail
10 - Eastside Trails
Long-Term Priority
These trail segments are longer running projects, which are recommended for
implementation between ten and fifteen years from plan adoption, and might even
take twenty years to complete; most of these projects either depend on other trail
segments being completed first, take longer to fund or rely on currently open matters
to be resolved before they can be targeted. The following projects in La Porte are
long-term:
2 - West Connector
5 - Bay Area Trail (unless existing TxDOT plans are changed to include trails)
7 - Spencer / Main Connector
11 - Little Cedar Trails
6.3 Costs for Implementation
Implementation Steps
An action group designated for the trail plan implementation should coordinate all of
these following steps:
1. Preliminary Items: Environmental analysis, preliminary design, possibly
feasibility study - must be obtained before proceeding.
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE 2
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
2. Permits: By City Council, possibly Harris County, by all involved trail corridor
owners, e.g. TxOOT, HCFCD, utility and pipeline companies. Responsibility
for the project construction lies with the City of La Porte.
3. Funding: Research for necessary grant qualifications, Council approval to
apply for grants or other funding sources, and ROW issues should be settled
at this point.
4. Design: Preparation of construction documents, specifications and cost
estimates; followed by bid documents and bidding procedures after permits
and funding are clarified.
5. Physical construction of the project can now take place.
Trail Type-related costs
Costs in this implementation plan are divided into construction and maintenance
costs.
Construction Costs:
. Construction of a new concrete trail, 8 feet wide:
. On-street trails, striping and signage:
. On-street trails, striping only
. Widening of ROW I Shoulder (Asphalt):
. Soft-surface trail (mulch, sand, gravel):
. Crossing, type 1:
. Crossing, type 1 lighted:
. Crossing, type 2 (incl. Traffic light modification):
. Crossing, type 3:
. Crossing, type 4:
$ 260,000 per mile
$ 15,000 per mile
$ 3,500 per mile
$ 220,000 per mile
$ 170,000 per mile
$ 3,000 ea.
$ 13,000 ea.
$ 10,000 ea.
$ 90,000 ea.
$ 170,000 ea.
An overview with the total construction cost for all proposed trail projects is
shown in table 6.2 at the end of this chapter.
Maintenance Costs:
Trail maintenance costs are calculated for the newly constructed trail segments only;
they cover labor, materials, costs for trash pickup, sweeping, resurfacing and repairs
of hard and soft-surface trails, and landscape maintenance.
The total annual estimated cost to maintain these types of trails is $ 261,000.
A budget of $ 23,625 is added to this sum in order to maintain on-street trail
segments, which do require some restriping and other maintenance occasionally.
There are also needs for budgets to maintain grade-separated crossings, keep up
education about bicycle and trail safety, and a salary for the appointed trail
coordinator. The total sum for these needs is $ 61,000.
See table 6.3 below for a list of maintenance items and their budgeted cost.
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENT A liON
PAGE J'
CITY OF PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
.
. . - . - I - - -
. , -
:- ~' . Ii I ::JI . 1':- . .
_N"m~JI
Total Price per .
Maintenance Item . . Miles Mile I Unit . .
lII.ailt' '''1111
Pavement sweeoing weekly' as needed
Shoulder and grass mowing I weed weekly' monthly as needed
control
Trash Disoosal weekly' as needed
Watering weekly' as needed
Plant Trimming monthly' as needed
Drainage Cleaning yearlv
Lighting Repair vearlv
Furnishing Repair vearlv
Telephone, Drinking Fountain, yearly
Irrigation lines etc. Reoair
Sign Replacment 1 - 3 vears
Pruning 1 - 4 vears
Pavement Repairs 5- 15 vears
Special Maintenance: Snow Removal, as needed
fallen trees, debris Graffiti
1$~l!liH~itil'l ....,I,'III
Debris Removal weekly' as needed
Shoulder and grass mowina , weed weekly I monthlv as needed
Trash Disposal weekly' as needed
Waterina weekly' as needed
Plant Trimmina monthlY' as needed
Drainaae Cleaning yearly' as needed
Liahtina Reoair yearlv
Furnishina Reoair yearlY
Sian Reolacment 1 - 3 years
Pruning 1 - 4 years
Surfacing Reoairs 2 - 5 years
Special Maintenance: Snow Removal, as needed
fallen trees, flood debris
em" ~.' Hmj!jjJliiiiIID" :r41ffi~ ~iiIiiIIIIII,II@iW;j.IiIJl'IIIC iiii.ili$231Iz1
Pavement sweeoina with street maintenance
Shoulder and grass mowing' weed weekly' monthly as needed
control
Trash Disposal with street maintenance
Sign Replacment 1 - 3 years
Pavement Marking Reolacement 1 - 3 vears
Liahtina Repair with street maintenance
IEIiHltillliiiflI1ruffllilllIr'" ':001:
Trash Disposal weekly' as needed
Sweeping' Debris Removal weekly' as needed
Drainaae Cleaning vearlv
Liahtina Reoair vearlv
Emeraencv Phone Reoair vearlv
Sa miD' i !It '.:000
School' Adult education oroarams I $ 10 000 everv vear I I I
Brochures + Uodate I $ 5 000 everv 5 vears I I I I
ICommunily Awareness oroarams I $ 3 000 oer year I I I I I
IBicvcle Events I $ 3000 oar vear I I I I I
ITrails Coordinator I 1$ 40.000 oer vear I I I I I
'>"%it-
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE 4-
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAil IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
6.4 Funding
Funding for the newly proposed trail segments is obtainable from several federal
funding sources as well as some private funds.
It is important to note that many projects can be funded with federal, state, and
regional grants (transportation, safety, air quality, etc.), but that the trails of mainly
recreational nature often have to be funded by local or private sources. The new
trails shown in Chapter 4 are meant for implementation within 10 to 15 years after
adoption of this plan; but some projects might take up to 20 years or longer,
depending on availability of funds.
Many of the existing funding sources are highly competitive, which makes it difficult
to predict when or if a certain project will be funded by a specific source. The fact
that communities often have to partially match grants with their own funds, and have
to coordinate roadway development and other projects, further complicates a clear
prediction of the order in which the trail segments can be built.
Possible opportunities for funding are already explained in the La Porte Parks and
Open Space Master Plan from 2002 (See Chapter 9), and are summarized again
below.
Federal I State Funds
. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) - Texas Recreation and Parks
Account (TRPA): The amount given per project is up to $ 500,000, the match can
be up to 50%. Projects supported are recreational parks and trails.
. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21): There is a wide range of
funding types available, but trails compete against other transportation projects;
the matches required range from 0% to 20%.
Bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible for funding under the following TEA-21
programs:
-National Highway System (NHS)
-Surface Transportation Program, including Railway-Highway Crossing Program
(Section 130) and Hazard Elimination Program (Section 152) safety funds
-Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
-Federal Lands
-Scenic Byways
-Recreational Trails (RTP)
Private I Other Funds
. Foundation and Company Grants - Some assist in direct funding for trail
projects, and some support efforts of non-profit or citizen organizations.
Further info can be found at "The Foundation Directory" and at "The
Foundation Grants Index": www.fdncenter.orq .
. "Grants for Greenways" is a national listing that provides descriptions and
links to groups who provide technical and financial support for greenway
interests.
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE 5
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAil IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
. Partnering with Developers and Private Land Owners is frequently possible;
the City should work together with the developer to create non-motorized
corridors, which will be beneficial to both the developer and the citizens.
. Partnering with regional volunteer groups can also be helpful when
constructing new trail projects. Their efforts can be used as part of the
required match for some grants.
. Partnerships with Utility Companies can often be established for the
proposed utility and pipeline easement trails.
New Construction
Future road widening and construction projects are one means of providing bike
lanes and walkways; but it is important that an effective review process takes place
to ensure that these projects provide bike lanes and sidewalks where needed, and
meet the standards and guidelines presented in this Trail Implementation Plan.
Local sales taxes, fees, bonds, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local
vote. A recent local example for this is Missouri City -In 1995 a bond issue for $35
Million was offered by the city, which allocated $250,000 for building trails for parks
and recreation, and another larger amount for trail construction within the
transportation funding. Part of these initial funds allowed for the immediate
construction of 1.25 miles of paved trails; soon thereafter, 2 additional miles of soft
surface trails were constructed after applying for grants and using the allocated funds
to match. Today, the city has 6 miles of trails, and is preparing to create a trail
implementation plan to expand the existing system to 27 miles.
La Porte volunteer programs, for example through schools or community groups,
may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways.
Local construction companies might donate or offer discounted services, or local
corporations might adopt bikeways, like it is already practiced with highways
throughout the area.
These are only some opportunities for implementation; others will appear during the
life of this plan, which may be useful for realizing further trail sections.
6.5 Conclusion
The provided Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Plan identifies and defines a
citywide network of trails of different types, such as connector trails, hike and bike
trails, equestrian trails and nature trails.
The overall goal of the plan is to enhance the quality of life for La Porte citizens by
providing the opportunity for non-motorized travel from home to recreation, school,
shopping, work or visiting friends.
This goal can be accomplished by utilizing La Porte's unique situation with multiple
existing corridors, applying above funding recommendations and a long-term
phasing strategy over the coming 20 years; this way, applications for grants and their
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE 6
CITY OF LA PORTE
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPLEMENTATiON PLAN
matching funds as well as traffic planning, city development and other trail relevant
factors can be considered and initiated well in time for budgeting and construction.
The plan suggests three major phases for implementation, resulting in 7 miles of
paved trails, 3.95 miles of soft surface trails and 1.35 miles of striped trails in the first
Phase (Total: 12.3 miles), 4.25 miles of paved trails, 4.4 miles of soft surface trails
and 5.3 miles of striped trails in the second Phase (Total: 13.95 miles), and 9.4 miles
of paved trails and 2.8 miles of striped trails in the last Phase (Total: 12.2 miles).
When the plan is fully implemented, the La Porte Trail System will consist of
38.45 miles. The budget for this plan is estimated to be around $10.5 Million.
CHAPTER 6 - FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION PAGE 7
if
2-
Oil c
l! ~ if
. .. if
c 0 2-
.. 2- S
. ~ ~
u . .. ..
1: .!! J! .. 'l! c ;;
~ c ::> .. 0 '"
C "0 . E u a
'" .. :D 3}. 'Ii 0
~ E ~ ;; ;; . C
E .
.c ~ .. . .. .
.. 0 0 0 .. .. 0
.. u .. ::> w UI
Destination Points
)
)
,
. - . - - - -
.. -
- .. lT~ - ~ ~ .. . ~ .
.. '- '-'
Total . . .. Total Grand
0 o' 0
No. . . . . . Length . . . Miles . Amount I' 0 Total
~""
2.1 concrete 1.5 $260,00 $390,00 $136,50 $526,50
2.2 widen asphalt 0.5 $220,00 $110,00 $38,50 $148,50
concrete 0.5 $260,00 $130,00 $45,50 $175,50
2.3 concrete 1.5 $260,00 $390,00 $136,50 $526,50
stripina 0.5 $3,50 $1,75 $61 $2,36
stripinal sianaae 0.7 $15,00 $10,50 $3,67 $14,17
2.4 stripina 0.6 $3,50 $2,10 $73! $2,83
Intersections
2A Tvpe 3 $90,00 $90,00
2B Tvpe 2 $10,00 $10,00
2C Type 2 $10,00 $10,00
3.1 (partially two-sided) crushed aravel 2.65 $170,060 $450,50 $157,67 $608,17
3.2 strioinal sianaae 0.25 $15,000 $3,75 $1,31 $5,06
crushed aravel 1 $170,00 $170,00 $59,50 $229,50
3.3 stripina 0.3 $3,50 $1,05 $368 $1,41
crushed aravel 0.3 $170,00 $51,00 $17,85C $68,85
Intersections
3A Type 2 (possible uparade type 4 not in this estimate) $10,00C $10,00C
3B Type 3 I $90,00C $90,00C
Hike and Bike concrete 1.8 $260,000 $468,000 $163,800 $631,800
Intersections I
4A Type 1 $3,00 $3,00
48 Type 1 $3,00 $3,00
4C Tvoe 3 $90,00 $90,00
Page 1
)
I No.
concrete 2.2 $260,000 $572,000 $200,200 $772,260
Intersections
5A Type 3 $90,00 $90,00(
58 Tyoe 3 $90,00 $90,OO(
5C Tyoe 3 $90,00 $90,OO(
mulch 2.6 $170,060 $442,000 $154,700 $596,70<:
Intersections
6A Tyoe 4 $170,000 $170,OOC
68 Tyoe 2 (oossible uoarade tyoe 4 not in this estimate) $10,000 $10,OOC
I (two-sided)lstripina! sianaae 0.8 I $15,0001 $12,0001 $4,2001 $16,2001
8.2 striping! signage 0.4 $15,000 $6,00 $2,10 $8,10
8.3 stripina! sianaae 0.4 $15,000 $6,00 $2,10 $8,10
Intersections
8A Tyoe 2
88 Type 3
8C Tyoe 3 (not in this estimate)
9.2 I striping! sianaae 0.8 $15,000 $12,00 $4,20 $16,20
9.3 (partially two-sided) concrete 1.1 $260,000 $286,00 $100,10 $386,10
Intersections
9A Tyoe 3
$10,000
$90,000
$10,00C
$90,OOC
$90,000
$90,000
Page 2
)
",
$15,00 $9,00 $3,15 $12,15
$260,00 $65,00 $22,75 $87,75
10.2 $260,00 $260,00 $91,00 $351,00
$15,000 $18,00 $6,30 $24,30
10.3 $15,00 $12,00 $4,20 $16,20
10.4 $260,00 $26,00 $9,10 $35,10
$15,00 $6,00 $2,10 $8,10
$90,00
$10,00
$10,00
$170,00
$90,00
$10,00
$10,00
$170,00
Page 3
$10,000
$90,00
Total Cost High Priority: $3,586,205
Page 4
Work Total . - . . . .. Total
. 0- 0
No. . . . . . Length . . Miles . Amount .- Grand Total
. . . . . . . - . . I I I
Equestrian mulch 1.8 $170,060 $306,00 $107,100 $413,165
Hike and 8ike concrete 1.8 $260,000 $468,000 $163,800 $631,80
Intersections
4A Type 1 $3,00 $3,00
48 Type 1 $3,00 $3~
4C Tyoe 3 $90,00 $90,00
mulch 2.6 $170,OOC $442,000 $154,700 $596,7OC
Intersections
6A Tyoe 4 $170,00C $170,00
68 Tyoe 2 (oossible uoarade type 4 not in this estimat~ $10,000 $10,00
9.2 stripinQ! siQnaQe 0.8 $15,000 $12,00 $4,20 $16,20
9.3 (partially two-sided) concrete 1.1 $260,000 $286,00 $100,10 $386,10
Intersections
9A Type 3 $90,000 $90,00
concrete 0.25 $260,OOC $65,000 $22,75 $87,75
10.2 concrete 1 $260,00C $260,00 $91,00 $351,00C
stripino! siQnaQe 1.2 $15,000 $18,00 $6,30 $24,300
10.3 stripinQ! siQnaQe 0.8 $15,000 $12,00 $4,20 $16,20
10.4 concrete 0.1 $260,060 $26,00 $9,10 $35,100
strioinal signage 0.4 $15,000 $6,00C $2,10 $8,10
Intersections
10A Tyoe 2 $10,000 $10,00
108 Tyoe 2 $10,000 $10,000
Total Cost Medium Priority: $2,994,875
Page 5
Work
No.
Project Name
Total
Length
Material
Types
Miles
Price per
Mile
Total
Amount
Contingency and
Design (35%)
Grand Total
2.1 1.5 $260,00 $136,50 $526,50
2.2 0.5 $220,00 $38,50 $148,50
0.5 $260,00 $45,50 $175,50
2.3 1.5 $260,00 $136,50 $526,50
0.5 $3,50 $61 $2,36
0.7 $15,000 $3,67 $14,175
0.6 $3,50 $73 $2,83
Page 6
City Counc
April 19,
Adapted from a presentation m
by Halff Associates
June 16, 2003
Projected Use
#<<.4 ~ ~ ~ 44 ~~
. Preferred new facilities in the survey:
- Playgrounds: 850/0
- Picnic Tables: 850/0
- Jogging / Biking Trails: 820/0
. Additionally, Equestrian Trails and Walking
f L ere requested at the Public Meeting.
o. ~o
t ~
- 1ft
U
Funding An implementation
p~~:
- Long-Term Priority -10-15 (20) years
- High Priority - 1 to 5 years
- Medium Priority - 6 to 10 years
~
.;
,...
~
~
.~
e
~
=
rf1
\
~
~
~
s
=
u
~
~
1
~
~
\
~
~
,S
rJ1
1
~
~
QJJ
a
\
BAT;n,EGROUND
IN QUSt,eIA': Q1STRICT
@COLlEGEI'ARIl.
PASADENA
.
.
(!) ~...~__",...~~--.".'_~~--""""i':
<i <9 ~::::::=:n~I::~;:<<rr
Polnh 01 lnt.r..t In Pau,dan,
.P;nlld.n. lU1I1 Sysl.m
_Shopplng.nll O'I'I1n9 on
Sp.ncer liwy .nd F..irmolll
Pkwy
PASADENA
BAYPORT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
__ PAVEIl CONCRETE TRAil
. .. SOFT SURfACE tRAIL
""4o PAVElleNT IlARKJHGIi
e TRAllSEGMENTNO.
<!) JUNIOR HIGH SCIiOOl
@ ELEMENTARY SCHOOl
@ H1GHSCttOOL
@COl.lEGE
<3> ALTERNATIVE SCHOOl
POinls 01 1I'I1.r..1 $outh
alon, 8., Ar.. Trail-
.Kipp.n Mo... Sporta Compl...
.Afm.nd B.you Nillur. Callt.,
.Bay Aru Hlk.. Bili, Tr.1l
-B.y Afl. P.uk
.NASA I John..on Sp,ce Cenl.,
.C',.u L..ll. Recr..lional Ar..
UNPR01l!CTEOCROSSING!TYPE 11
REOMfCTfO CROSs-.o iTY~ 21
NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSING !TYPE 31
OAAOE. UI"AAATED CROSSING(TYf'E"1
. SHOPPIHG I DINING AREAS
<it POINT OF INTEREST
(9 PARK
City of La Porte
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan
IIIHalff Associates. Inc.
...,
@
o
Point. "I In'oto..1 I" e..ytown
e"ylown PI"t..... Conler
.EddleGr..y W..II.nds
Eduealion Center
.Saylown Trail Sy.'"n,
ED Southside Trail
(in place)
ED Pasadena Connector
ED Big Island Slough
.
<9
@
(f)
Pol"ts Itll..I.,esll.. SeablGok I K"""ah
-Se..brook Sports Comple,.
.Me Hal& Park, Pin" Gully Palk, H..t<l" Gard"..
P..,k, Robinaoll P..... (Coastal Bhdin; Tr.UI
. Kam.h 80.H'......' Shopplllg .nd 01..'1'1;
-CI...r La.... Rt'cr...l'onlll A'...
o 1/:.... 1/2
r-- _
SCALE IN MILES
2
,
MAY 2003
Funding An implementation
N~~A I I ~A I ""p~"
- Northwest Trail
- Railroad Trail
- Bayside Trail
Mediu
CD
Ci
Polnla 01 Inl.".,,\ in Baylown
Baylown N..".... Cente.
.EddieGrey We,I'lOd$
Education C.nter
-Bay town Trail Syalom
@COLLEGfPARIl.
PASADENA
.
.
CD
~
~-~.-"".,.', ,-'---....()..,...........,-,....'~.~
!p' ....M... CO.v.nllo.. Ce,,"r ' , ' -,' ,,' - <.,
\JiI ....Hefte ~ QuU..ld.
o Northwest Trail
Points 01 In'.'..' in P..~d.,,'
P...aden. Tr.il Syal.'"
-ShoPPi"; and Dining on
Spenc.. Hwy_ ~,"d f"iffnQnt
PII.)!
PASADENA
BAYPORT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
o Railroad Trail
.. .... PAVEMENT IlARI(lNGS
€V TRAIL SEGMENT NO.
<D JUNIOR ttlGH SCHOOl
<g) ELEMfNTARV SCHOOl
@ HIGH SCHOOL
@ COLLEGE
<9 ALTUMATlVE SCHOOl.
NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSING ,TYPE )1
P",.nts 01 In I..... .outh
alongS.y Area T,ail
.Kipper Mo... Spo,l" Camplell
....rm.nd Sayou Nature CeMe'
.aay .It.... Hill. + alk., T,,1II1
-811Y Ar.. Puk
-NASA I Johnl"'" 8v.cll' Cent..
.Clear lake Reel..lian.' Area
o Bayside Trail
_ PAVED CONCRETE TRAIL
. .. SOFT SURfACE TRAIl
UNPROTECTEO CROSSING (TYPE 1)
REDlRECnD CROSSMllTYPf 2)
GRADE IEl"AAATfO CROSSING (lYPE 4)
e.. SHOf'PlHG '''''''NGAREAS
<ia POtNT Of INTEREST
(i) PARK
Eastside Trails
City of La Porte
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan
11= H alff Associates, Inc.
... ".
... Points of 11I1.r.U in Seabrook I K.m....
.. .Seabrook Spor'e Compl..
Irl. Me. Halo P.rll" Pin. Gully Park, He...'.., Gardon
\.!I Park, Robinson Park (Coastal BI,ding T,ait)
Kemilh Board..."lk ShoppIng amd Dining
(i. .Cloarlak.Rec,eal;o"al-',.,
ct)
O " "
r ..:! _2
SCALE IN MILES
2
,
MAY 2003
Funding An implementation
~~A I
- West Connector
- Bay Area Trail
- Main Street Connector
- Little Cedar Trails
..
.
(!)
~
CD
C!)
Pol"" ot 'nUt....tln e..yto....."
Baylown N.m.... Cente'
.Edd,,,G,ay Weiland"
Educat,on Cenl..,
-B"yln.....n T..i1 Sylltem
@COLlEGEPARK
PASADENA
POI"b 01 In'er..1 I" P"udena
-P.uadena Trail S)'.tem
-Shopping ~1I,d Dlni"9 Oil
Sp..neer Hw)' .nd Fairmont
Pkw,
o West Connector
PASADENA
BAYPORT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
o Bay Area Trail
NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSING ITYPE )1
Points ollnt..e.. '''lIth
along Bay Ar.. Trail
.M;ippIH Me... spo,t" CORlple.
-A,rm.nd 8ayou Nalu.. Center
.Bay ...r.. Hik. . lik. TraU
-8.y AI" Pull
.NASA I Jol'lnaon Sp.ee Center
.(;1.., l"... R.o:,..lio"II' A"..
o Main St. Connector
__ PAVED CONCRETE TRAil
. .. SOfT SURfACE TRAIL
......... PAVEMENT ......RKlNGS
e TRAlLSEGMENfNO
@ JUNIOR ttlGH SCIiOOl
o ELEMENTARY SCHOOl
o HIGH SCHOOL
<E) COLLEGE
0: A,lTERHATIV( SCHOOl
UNPROTECTED CROSSING 'TYPE 1)
REOlRf.CTED CROSSING (TYPE 2)
GRADE SEPARATED CRossn.o JTYPE 41
. SHOPPtHG I DINING AREAS
~ :rnTEREST
Little Cedar Trails
City of La Porte
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan
III Halff Associates. Inc.
...
.
Q)
(i)
(f)
Poll'lu of IfIlel'UI ;n S.,brook I Kem.h
-S..brook Spons Campln
M~ Hale Park. Pill' O...U., Pa,k. HCl..te, Gude"
Pnk, Robinson parI< (Coil.tal Birding Trill/Ii
<<ema" SOUdWlllk Shoppln, end Oln,n,
-Clear l.k. Re<;...tion"IA,..
o "1.. '"
P"""- _
SCALE IN MILES
2
,
MAY 2003
-
.
~
<!)
CD
<!)
Poln", ollnhHe..' in Blly-to......
Baylown Naill'" Cllnt.r
-EddiIlG'IIY Wlltland.
[d"C,IlI0" C.nte,
.Sa110wn T..lI Sy.l~nl
@ COLLEGE PARK
PASADENA
<';';;'~~J"_ ..... . . ,a
-~---... "" .,.,..........
~ ........... ce....,i.... ee".,
\;#' ""Mefl' Rodee Groun...
POhll$ ollnl.,nt in '....den,
.',naden. TraIl 5,.111",
-Shopp,n9 .,ul Oll'll"g Oil
Sp.ncII' Hwy "nd hinnont
Pkwy
Built
PASADENA
BAYPORT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Planned
__ PA.VED CONCRETE TRAIl
. .. SOfT SURFACE TRAjL
UNPROTECTfO CROSSING (TYPE 1;
FtfOtJtEC TED CROSSING (TYPE 21
NEW SIGNALIZED CROSSING ITYPE lj
... GRADE SE....RATED CROQtNG ,TYf>f 4)
. SHOPF'tHG I DINiNG AREAS
<f) POtl\lT Of INTEREST
.......
POints 011"'.'..' to 11th
along 8ay ",.. Trail;
.K,pp.r M.... Sporls Complex
-Armand aayou N.lu,. Ce"'..
.8,., A,ell HIll.. 8ike TraU
.a.-y A...a Park
-NASA I John.on Space Cenler
-CI.., l'ke R.",.,"o"1I1 Arta
........ PAVEMENT IU.RKlNGS
e TRAil UGMENT NO.
@ JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOl
<g) ELEMENTARY SCHOOl
o HlGHSCHOOt.
~ :~:::nvE SCHOm
City of La Porte
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Implementation Plan
11= H alff Associates, I nc.
...'
.. ..... f'olnu ollnl.,.., III Sub,ook II<.m.",
.. -S.~brook Sport.. Com pl...
ti'l. .Me. Hal.. Pillk, PUUt GullW P;ll,k, He.te. Garden
~. Park, RObin"on P.,k ,Co~tt.1 Girding Tr.m
. K.milh 80ilrd.illk $hoPpin9 ;llnd Oll",ng
. .Cl"ilr Llk. R"er.~tion~1 Ar.iI
(f)
o '/L'I,
r""'".- _
SCALE IN MILES
2
.
MAY 2003
Landscape rabriC
10'
-I
Cross
Section
1" x 8" White Pine
for Mulch,
1" X 6" White Pine
for Crushed Granite
Natural Grade
Natural Grade
Linear
Layout
Bay town Park Trail Design
Construction Sequence Used by City of Baytow
1. Remove Brush & Debris from proposed trail path.
2. Set 1" X 6" or 1" X 8" forms on either side, using 1" X 4" X
3. Place drain pipe at low spots to allow flow under the trail; or
4. Place crushed concrete material with F.E. Loader, wI hand s
5. Lay landscape fabric inside trail width.
6. Place either pine bark mulch, or crushed granite, with F.E. Loa
7. Backfill along both sides of form, with Top Soil or Bank Sand
8. Hydro mulch or hand-seed Top Soil or Bank Sand wI bermudagr
Funding A ~mplementation
~/tn~
. Phase I (High Priority
- 12.3 miles, $3,600,000
. Phase II (Medium Priority):
- 14 miles, $3,000,000
. Phase III (Long-Term):
- 12.2 miles, $4,000,000
f L Funding for Southside Trail (High
t: 0 1>~1>....Priority) provided by a federal "Safe
- .."" ~ 1ft
u~. 'Routes to School" Grant.
l/
Funding A ~mplementation
f~~
. Federal/State Funds (more ensive due to
higher construction standards a costs)
. Private Funds (possible partnershi
companies, plants in the area)
. New Construction (add as part of new
construction adjacent to trails)
. Bond Issues and Local Taxes
. Volunteer Programs (i.e. equestrian trails,
etc. )