HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/08/14 Item 20 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 20
Meeting Date 8/14/84
ITEM TITLE: Resolution //7,54.-, - Expressing Support for the Lower Sweetwater
/ Reorganization and Authorizing Payment of Processing
Fees
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning(1'L (4/5ths Vote: Yes No )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ,::
During the course of the last several months, the Cities of National City and Chula
Vista, and LAFCO staff have discussed the annexation of the Lincoln Acres/Lower Sweetwater
unincorporated "county island"area. As a result of these discussions and the overwhelming
support of the inhabitants of this area for annexation to the City of Chula Vista, support
for the annexation is appropriate at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council :
1 . Adopt a resolution expressing City Council support for the annexation and authorizing
payment of processing fees.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable.
DISCUSSION
The City Council at its regular meeting of June 19, 1984, authorized the payment of
annexation fees on the condition that the residents of the subject area indicated their
desire to annex to the City. The territory in question is inhabited with more than 12
registered voters residing therein. At the present time, a majority of the land owners
and registered voters within the proposal area have signed petition forms in support of the
proposed annexation.
General Description of the Subject Area (see Exhibit A)
The subject area is the southerly component of an unincorporated County
"island" which is entirely surrounded by Chula Vista and National City. This
island is physically subdivided into north-south components by I-54 (South Bay
Freeway). The northern component, known as the "Lincoln Acres Community," is
contiguous and geographically related to National City, while the southerly
component shares this relationship with Chula Vista.
The peripheral boundary of the subject "island" is coterminous with that of
the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District. At the present time there is a
fire protection agreement in effect between the cities and the District. In
accordance with the said agreement, the area to the north of I-54 is served by
the National City Fire Department, and the area to the south of I-54 is served
by the Chula Vista Fire Department. It should also be noted that the Board of
Directors of the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District recently voted
unanimously (informally) to seek dissolution of the said District.
The proposal area contains approximately 88 acres which are comprised of two
areas that are both contiguous to the existing municipal boundary. The
northerly boundary is the center line of the future Sweetwater River Flood
Control Channel and the easterly boundary is the easterly right-of-way line of
I-805.
Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)
•
Page 2, Item 20
Meeting Date 8/14/84
On July 24, 1984, the City Council of National City approved the proposed
boundary.
General Plan and Prezoning
The subject area is currently designated "High Density Residential" (13-26
DU/AC) , "Medium Density Residential" (4-12 DU/AC) , and "Parks and Public Open
Space" on the plan diagram of the Land Use Element of the Chula Vista General
Plan.
On May 29, 1984, LAFCO, at the City's request, waived the prezoning
requirement for approximately 22 acres of land within the proposed area. The
balance of the area, with the exception of the involved freeway/channel
right-of-way, was prezoned in 1978 in accordance with the General Plan.
Existing Development
The subject area is developed with a single-family neighborhood located west
of North Second Avenue. Several large residential lots on the west side of
Del Mar Avenue and north of "C" Street are presently undeveloped. The KOA
Campground facility is located to the east of the subject neighborhood and the
balance of the area is comprised of freeway/channel right-of-way and vacant
land within the 100-year flood plain of the Sweetwater River.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County 's Facilities Planning Division has offered to
negotiate the exchange of property tax from the area outside of the adopted
Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement. However, the proposed "outside
negotiation" must be agreed upon by the City and County prior to the submittal
of the annexation application to LAFCO.
Taking all revenue sources into consideration, the City would experince a net
loss of approximately $2,000 in revenue under the Master Agreement. However,
under the County-proposed tax exchange, the City would receive between $5,000
and $6,000 of revenue from all sources including property taxes. This amount
of course, would apply to the base year (taxes collected today). In future
years the City would receive 41% of the area's growth in value (annual tax
increment, ATI) under the County-proposal as compared to 24.5% of ATI pursuant
to the Master Agreement.
The related annexation fees are as follows:
State Board of Equalization $ 510.00
LAFCO Processing Fee 1 ,575.00
TOTAL FEES $2,085.00
For more complete fiscal impact, see Exhibit B. OF+o='
ERA:WP:lm
•
Q
I--�
H
CO
I--I
S
><
W
r
oil
Q L 3
, \iik,.. -
..
S E
=
il‘Vii!iii11,111.11.. INS1V.1111 ::..:::::;,..:::.1.:,:.:,.K::,:,?.,.....,:,..;::..e.r.::,::,:::::i. ..,:..„;:::,,,,;,;,:,,:,.:..-.:-:iii;k::::::::::::ftw..:::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::*:::::::::::::::m::::::**:::'&. t.:40V1111,:..,,:... .:,0:!','"!;;.5:„:. 'v.':..MV:V4*:;:.:. ,p, � O 4. 0 C .r.•
':�'h at}
-N :ft Izit,..;.......i,.. .:-,.::::,:iiiiiiiigitklpr. ‘:„ ::::::,,..„,:::::::::::„..::,:::::::„:„. Z� n m w V a
,
..,
W Q
O
V
O
n O
.\16,4 ..,-,;',*,:::x**]*:::":.:.:::.',,::,,::.- �, E a W C O+ ,
' ::::::::0411MEN;:::11Lia tiiii„!',:..:::::;. ...;;;;;;;;;;;P.;:' ::.. ...:::::: . .- , 43,t;V::::::'4:41'42; . ....t. '''55ie:,..-'7.1.' ' °
) -... ., \ ".,,.. _NR:.::',4:a.'.':;:.:iii:-'ii::..':::,149Eati:i.i'ii...:1.:....------ -a§r- o'-'- /: '..:"..17.-".413,-,Kr . V41,V114-. 4., „,.-.i.,, a" '
rk
, 11411.i ... ...,..-1:.•1''; s 3*:.S. '::. sk.:,,A k:Ne::::::::::::: 4;‘. .'..4, ,Z.:::::::::.A. ' ''ig4,.0'''-jA* ,,,,,,,,,Liiiii 'Ili-,7_...•1$0■.‘.41'. , ' ,r,,Tc„..„..... eiiir'low.- . '
I olisli,,,,,i.;iii7,- ,,,, idikkl,*, -..,;,,- ../: -:.::::t:::,;:: .::.::?:.::::.::.::::.::.:::.::.::::::'ki---...g,.. 3,iv,,21;,,t. ,,r,ki,----n.......e.:A V.,':'''..0;',..:.-.411%113-14....v),,,,ti ,--
s , t,,,/ ,-,,,-). A :::::".::........::::::::::::-:-::::::....::-::::-:::::. c'-',.1* ''.4' u...,"'"*..471 T.,./..V.rs'AWA.:4V-4,:,.4 ii: ,
----_,,,,o „ . r . ' ......::1:::4-:..i.:::.:.:::*::::.::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::: ;;14.6,.. ..,,A1.4‘A ,..,,.It .,....... ,,,,. .., 1,1, 1,-,,,o,
., • , .3,_. .._ ,_ 0.,,,
,:l 1 , t,-i...., .::::::41::::::::,.......::::,:::::::, ,...--..,p,,,TkiA,„1,:t _ vii.,\Awituctt kil,f,t
--. WOE!,;*:,: ,/ ,,-.:' 7„,- Iiis- / , , . -'--7..::::::i.:-1::::::"•::::-.1::::::::?.::.-.........:::::.-........:::::•:.:::::. ;Q,4 .,;..':7; '6.t‘-;17i h-., Iv--t't likk v..,ink :Ati,,,-o-1,1:10.3,, ..',
,/,/ , ,, ::::4:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,"'?:-,,,k- fi.: it,4"'''''' 'V r4txt '..k‘4,111?,01.,;„......1114i'eli,lk„1...\-
.'At - , 1041S;V:.::::,'.,.-.s.,;1-7'lot-- , ..: , z i re ,.z . ,.___....:-..,74,__ f 1 z a.:::::-4.. :::-::.:::::?::::::-::::::.:-:::::•::::::*:::::*:::::.::::::::::::::.::::::::-: *7'74- •;!-:*'/ , .-- ,,,...#0/_;,yj ,:-- ,I,v/ fly is, • ``:�.`:•`_`':' :`.%�•.`:'_`'`' Itlh,:ii ."4i.'4.4. 44 .:j��' \1:1'4'
Mil- �- z.
r
.....„ tit., . ....:::.:-.::::::::::::::,:-:.::,...,:::::,,,...4::::,..:::::::::.::::::::::::.,4,....,„7,%,,rw -.,•,,,,,,,.:::,,,..,..,.i...„S
;_i_-
.j
f
ffnn'' J �,f
N
r
r•
.s. 'I4
•H.
l4�
s
f
'O, �a
ac
1116111, ... ..--- ::...:..............
A ailk 7 •mg .4,,,. :::::::::5R.:0.::::::::n:::::g::::, :t:::::1 .. wti' Ovissok-47,115,rae�
"M.. t
•Ott, ''Tiii:::',,-"41.040:111111":41:11:11 / ,...,;-:.::-.-:'. \ wr -*--`‘'''''--7"`-'4ar . 6 ,6605-090 -.*, lvila-DA®- - i,,, ta ..) ,,,,.-,i;,.4,',;-.• .
,,,, .--.,..", •••,-;,..,-- -- ,_-. .,c,;-. ...*::"..,..... c, .4— '','...,,,,:ka:t., *, 7,,a,i.i... pn„..a.,
,,, ...... _...A.. . v4„,„1„,.. ,s...,14 , 4-, "'' ..it.:_ait,te
'.' % Iiii *iiigalral 1,ii. 1 ::::•::::::.:t. 44'1r.,.7!,'„,7-.0 '0.,...:::::::::::,::::::::::::::::::::,::::::::::::„.::::::::.,,,- . r., 43 ,,,I,i. . \ \: t4-,::::r !:::::::::::41:::.!;.:::;,..iiiil 1 ...,„..,„ , t :r .. ....... ,. ,.. i, .....1 ,, ,,„,...
' •L r `. N. 3,',;•7 i, . '' ,.. "'.:0'''''j.,.:
t. moo„• i:!1•.:'. t r 1 4 .� v� v a
•
•
s
• EXHIBIT B
August 2, 1984
TO: John Goss, City Manager
FROM: George Krempl , Director of Planning G t
SUBJECT: Lower Sweetwater Annexation/Fiscal Impact Update
As requested in your memo of June 29, 1984, a more complete/updated fiscal
impact statement, in connection with the proposed Lower Sweetwater Annexation,
has been prepared for your review. Because the potential fiscal impact of the
proposed annexation is multi-faceted, data pertaining to the subject fiscal
picture has been addressed and tabulated in the following paragraphs of this
report.
1. Revenue Received from State Subventions
- Cigarette tax $ 222
- Gasoline tax 1 ,623
- Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) 1 ,617
(or, based on full MVLF) $3,079
- Off Highway MVLF 2
Subtotal $ 3,464
(or, based on full MVLF) $4,926
2. Revenue Received from City of Chula Vista Taxes
- Utility Users taxes
(Gas, Electric & Telephone) $ 1 ,584
- Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) 25,000
(KOA Campground facility - based on
estimated revenue from an additional
178 spaces post annexation)
• Subtotal $26,584
3. Revenue Received from Property Taxes
The Planning Department requested the assistance of Joan Werner, Chief of
the County's Facilities Planning Division, for the purpose of determining
the amount of property tax the City would receive from the annexed
territory. Ms. Werner determined the amount of tax dollars using two
different scenarios; the first in accordance with the adopted Master
Property Tax Exchange Agreement, and the second (County proposal ) , which
would require the City and County to adopt resolutions agreeing to
negotiate outside of the Master Agreement. Under both scenarios, the
reorganization of the subject territory would include detachment from the
Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District. These scenarios are addressed
below.
John Goss - 2 - August 2, 1984
•
Based on current tax rolls, the area proposed for annexation has a net
full market valuation (value of land and improvements minus all
exemptions) of approximately $2.4 million. The actual property taxes
collected from the area would be about $24,000 (1% Proposition 13 tax
rate).
Scenario 1 - Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement
Under this scenario the City would receive- 17.5 percent of the tax dollars
relinquished by those agencies losing service responsibility as a result of
annexation. However, in accordance with the master agreement, the involved
fire district would retain its share of the base property tax revenue.
Ultimately, the City would receive approximately $2,500 and would also receive
24.5 percent of the annual tax increment thereafter.
Scenario 2 - County Proposal to Negotiate Outside of Master Agreement
Under this scenario the City would receive substantially more tax dollars.
Ms. Werner proposes that the City would receive approximately $9,900, and in
addition, would be eligible for 41 percent of the annual tax increment in
future years. In this case, the involved fire district would not retain its
share of the base revenue.
Ms. Werner has offered to prepare a resolution regarding the subject property
tax negotiation proposal and present said resolution to the Board of
Supervisors in the very near future. As aforementioned, the City Council
would also have to adopt a resolution agreeing to negotiate outside of the
Master Agreement.
According to the Finance Department, the City would also receive additional
property tax for debt service for the outstanding 1970 Police Facility Bonds.
Based on the current tax rate of $.00583 per $100 of full property value, the
City would receive approximately $140 for debt service.
Property tax subtotal - $2,500 + 140 = $2,640 (Master Agreement)
or
$9,900 + 140 = $10,040 (Outside Negotiation)
4. Construction Costs for Sweetwater Flood Control Project
The City Engineer has confirmed that the City, as a result of annexing the
subject territory, would not be required to pay a portion of the County's
share of the bridge construction work across the proposed flood control
channel . Therefore, the City's annual obligation for channel maintenance
costs, as discussed in the Planning Department's June 14, 1984 memo,
remains applicable to the proposed annexation.
(- (7
John Goss - 3 - August 2, 1984
5. In summary, the City would receive the following revenues after the
completion of the subject annexation:
Pursuant to County-
Pursuant to Proposal (negotiate
Master Property Outside Master
Tax Agreement Agreement
- State Subventions $ 3,464 $ 4,926 - $ 3,464 $ 4,926
(full MVLF) (full MVLF)
- City Taxes 26,584 26,584 26,584 26,584
- Property Taxes 2,640 2,640 10,040 10,040
Subtotal $32,678 $34,150 40,088 $41 ,550
- Minus $35,000
(loss of District
firefighter) -35,000 -35,000 -35,000 -35,000
NET TOTAL (Loss/Gain) -$2,322 -$ 850 $ 5,088 $ 6,550
WPC 1179P