The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 1996/02/06 Notice is hereby given that the Mayor/Chajrman of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency has called and will convene a special joint workshop/meeting of the Redevelopment Agency/City Council on February 6, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room, located in the City Hall Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California to consider, deliberate and act upon the following: "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am ~an emplo/ea by the City of Chu'a Vista in the Communt¡ Devcio;>c,ont Cc,:ortmcnt and that I posted this Agen~3/Notice on the Bu~:Gt;n Board at the Public Services Building "na at City Hall on DATE:~SIGNED ~ ~ .. Tuesday, February 6, 1996 Council Conference Room 6:00 p.m. City Hall Building (following the Joint Redevlopment Agency/City Council meeting) Special Joint Workshop/Meeting of the Redevelopment Agencv/Citv Council of the City of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Agency/Council Members Alevy -' Moot -' Padilla_, Rindone -' and Chajr/Mayor Horton - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None Submitted. BUSINESS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency and staff recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and ,'ubmit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. 3.A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18195 (1) MODIFYING THE 1995.96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; (2) APPROPRIATING $154,200 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND 230 AND APPROPRIATING $134,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE FUND 231; (3) DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, REIMBURSEMENT OF A PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND TO REIMBURSE THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND UNTIL $1,423,996 HAS BEEN REIMBURSED; (4) APPROPRIATING $21,572 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FUND 420 TO CIP PROJECT PR168, (5) REAPPROPRIATING $200,788 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE TRANSNET FUND 603 FROM PROJECT ST961 TO CIP PROJECT ST123 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS, AND (6) APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF FUND 222 - TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO CIP PROJECT RD220 --The Agency as a source of funding for specific Capital Improvement Projects has been Agenda -2- February 6, 1996 evaluated in light of budget constraints. As a result, staff recommends all projects not deemed as a priority be dropped from the current CIP unless they have non-impacting alternative funding sources. Other priority projects are being recommended for non-Agency funding sources, and reimbursement to the Agency from Parking Funds for parking improvements in the Downtown Parking District is being proposed. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) (4/5ths Vote Required) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1483 (1) APPROVING LOANS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE FINE ART FUND 991 TO THE BA YFRONTITOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,013, TO THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,380, AND TO TOWN CENTRE n REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,758, TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND (2) APPROPRIATING $150,786 FROM THE ANTICIPATED PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE FULLER FORD SITE TO CIP PROJECT RD133 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS (4/5ths Vote Required) 4.A AGENCY REPORT REPORT OF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCREMENT REVENUE..As part of the Mid-Year Budget Report, a necessary task was determining the appropriate level of funding for the City's Economic Development Program from Redevelopment Agency tax increment revenue. Staff recommends the Agency accept the report and approve the Joint Agency/Council resolution directing staff to make appropriate budgetary and financial adjustments associated with the current year and retroactive reduction back to FY 1989/90. (Community Development Director) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1484/ COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18196 ESTABLISHING THE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 31.63 PERCENT FOR THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995- 96, AND ESTABLISHING A RETROACTIVE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 38.53 PERCENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989-90 THROUGH 1994-95 5. AGENCY REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 MID-YEAR AGENCY BUDGET REPORT..The Redevelopment Agency Board adopted the FY 95-96 Agency budget on 6/27/95. As part of the budget, staff was directed to return with a Mid-Year Budget Report in order to update the Agency Board on the progress made toward the goal of restoring the Agency's depleted fund balances. Staff recommends the Agency review and accept the report. (Community Development Director) Agenda -3- February 6, 1996 6.A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1485 AUTHORIZING (I)-REIMBURSEMENT OF $271,112 TO ROHR, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BF/OP #3, (2) DEFERRAL OF PAYMENT OF $98,388 TO THE CITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND (3) RETENTION OF $30,000 OF REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL SEWER MONITORING FACILITY ODOR PROBLEM IS RESOLVED, (4) DEFERRAL OF THE FINE ART FEE, (5) DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE $16,313 REIMBURSEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT FEES TO ROHR, INC. IN THE 1996- 97 BUDGET AND (6) AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INC. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVEnIn accordance with Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP#3 between the Agency and Rohr, Inc. for construction of a 245.000 square foot industrial office building, certain costs for public improvements installed by Rohr were eligible for reimbursement. Rohr has completed the required pre-requisites for two of the three reimbursements and has requested the Agency agree to a modified reimbursement schedule for the third item. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18197 (1) APPROPRIATING $87,112 FROM FUND 230 - PARKING METER FUND AND $134,000 FROM FUND 231 - IN-LIEU PARKING FEE FUND TO BA YFRONT /TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND, AND (2) APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF FUND 222 - TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RD220 - ROHR REIMBURSEMENT (4/5ths Vote Reouired) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. OTHER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) 8. CHAIR'SIMAYOR'S REPORT(S) 9. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Agenda -4- February 6, 1996 ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on February 20, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ...... COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty -eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at 619.691.5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at 619.585.5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C 0\ WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\O2-06-96.AG21 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 3o..-+-b A I Meeting Date 1/23/915' :2 ~ I}(.. ITEM TiTlE: A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 18'I~f MODIFYING THE 1995-96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; 2) APPROPRIATING $154,200 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND 230 AND APPROPRIATING $134,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE IN-LIEU PARKING FEE FUND 231, 3} DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, REIMBURSEMENT OF A PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND TO REIMBURSE THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND UNTIL $1,423,996 HAS BEEN REIMBURSED; 4) APPROPRIATING $21,572 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OFTHE PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FUND 420 TO CIP PROJECT PR168, 5} REAPPROPRIATING $200,788 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE TRANSNET FUND 603 FROM PROJECT ST961 TO CIP PROJECT ST123 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS, AND 6) APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF FUND 222 - TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO CIP PROJECT RD220 B. AGENCY RESOLUTION plJ'.3 1) APPROVING LOANS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE FINE ART FUND 991 TO THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,013, TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,380, AND TO TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,758, TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND 2) APPROPRIATING $150,786 FROM THE ANTICIPATED PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE FULLER FORD SITE TO CIP PROJECT RD133 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS. SUBMITTED BY: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: John D. Goss, Executive Director/City Mana~ (4/5 h~ote: Yes.lL No_I Council Referral No. ~ BACKGROUND: In light of the Redevelopment Agency's budget constraints, Redevelopment Agency funding for Capital Improvement Program projects has been reviewed, and the Redevelopment Agency as a source of funding for specific projects has been evaluated. As a result, staff is cip95 (Janua'Y 18. 1996 [2,27 pm]) .3- / Page 2, Item 6c<...4-'Þ Meeting Date ~/23/36 "-/~19 b recommending that all projects that are not deemed as priority be dropped from the current CIP unless they have non-Agency impacting alternative funding sources. In addition, non- Agency funding sources are being recommended for several of the priority projects, and reimbursement to the Redevelopment Agency from Parking Funds for parking imp-rovements in the Downtown Parking District is being proposed. The following report discusses the status of Agency funded CIP projects and optional funding methods available. RECOMMENDATION: A. That the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) Modifying the 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program, 2) Appropriating from the unappropriated balances: $154,000 from the Parking Meter Fund and $134,000 from the In-lieu Parking Fee Fund to the BayfrontlTown Centre I Redevelopment Fund, 3) Directing staff to include in the 1996-97 budget process and future budget processes, reimbursement of a percentage (annual amount to be determined) of the future unappropriated fund balance of the Parking Meter Fund to reimburse the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund until $1.423,996 has been reimbursed, 4) Appropriating $21,572 from anticipated revenues of the Park Acquisition & Development Fund to CIP Project PR168, 5) Re-appropriating $200,788 from anticipated revenues of the TransNet Fund from ST961 to CIP Project ST123, and 6) Appropriating $50,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund 222 to CIP Project RD220. B. That the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution: 1) Approving loans from the Fine Art Fund to the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund, to the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Agency Fund and, to Town Centre II Redevelopment Agency Fund and, 2) Appropriating $150,786 from the anticipated proceeds of the sale of the former Fuller Ford site to CIP project RD133. dp95 (J.~"y 18.1996 (2,27 pmll 3,-2- Page 3, Item 3 t:l+ b Meeting Date +fZ3f9& ;¿j 1ø/'1 (p BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On September 21, 1995, the Town Centre Project Area Committee voted 3-1 to recommend that the City Council appropriate funds from the unappropriated fund balance of the Parking Meter Fund 230 and the In-Lieu Parking Fee Fund 231 to the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment fund balance to reimburse the Agency for parking improvements. In addition, the Committee recommended that the Council appropriate 50% of future annual unencumbered revenues from the Parking Meter Fund 230 to the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Project fund balance to reimburse the Agency for parking improvements up to the amount of $1.423,996. Minutes are attached. DISCUSSION: This report discusses the Redevelopment Agency's funded portion of the 1995.96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The method of funding the Redevelopment Agency funded projects has been to transfer tax increment money into the CIP project account as the project funds were expended and as tax increment was received. Since all the annual tax increment receipts now are necessary to finance the operation of the Redevelopment Agency, alternative sources of funds for the Agency's portion of funding for capital projects need to be found. Staff reviewed the portion of the current CIP funded by the Agency and prioritized all projects. Only those projects determined to be imminent were designated as priority and recommended for funding. "Priority project" has been defined as a project having a current contractual or legal obligation, or if deferred or cancelled, would cause a significant delay to a current redevelopment proposal (i.e. Broadway Business Homes). The balance of the projects, unless they have a non.impacting source of funding, are being recommended to be deferred or cancelled. These projects are not urgent and can be reevaluated in future CIP budgets. During fiscal year 1994.95, the following Agency funded Capital projects were completed: RD118 Parking Structure Repair RD208 Church/Center Parking Lot DR101F Telegraph Canyon Flood Control PR121 Marina View Park RD205 Animal Shelter RD217 Acquisition of Shinohara Property RD218 Paint Pit Prudential Overall RD136 Third Avenue Sidewalk Repair Although these projects were completed during last fiscal year, project close.out will take place during 1995.96. The unencumbered balances from these projects are recommended to be cancelled and represent a savings of $109,583. The current list of Agency funded CIP projects and funding recommendations for each project area are included in the discussion below 3~3 cip95 IJ,~"v 18. 199B12,27 pm]} Page 4. Item 3"".¡... b Meeting Date 1 i23i()6"' :Lj/¿,/'llo BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT FUND 995 FUND #995 - BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I P"j'" # p"J'" Till' R"'i" 0"" C"," Noo-Tn '""'01'"' Fu"dl"g s"", PRIORITY PROJECTS ROt 12 O"moli"oo S,., Di'go Shipb,II""g ",tOO P"ki"g F,"d R'p'vm,", '9,tOO Ii"'- BF431 Rt6B M,mo,i" POlk Ph", II 21,572 P.A.O. F'"d $2t,572 ROt 18 TC I P"ki"g St,""",R"p,i, 42.900 B" ",810 {CI P"ki"1I F,"" R,p,vm,", $16,887 FI", A'I F'M loo" $26,013 110220 Roh' P,bli, 101""'01'"" 30t,t12 "6,386 P"ki"g F,"d, R'p"m,", '25t,t12 T,""k S'w" C'p. R". '"0,000 R0208 Ch'"hIC,"", P"ki"g lo< ", 53,048 {CI GGI04 Goo '""'01"'00 Sv"~ 11,IOt 10,002 P"""g F,"d R'"vm,"' '",IOt PRIORITY SUBTOTAL $385.785 $108,390 '62,8" NON-PRIORITY !POTENTIAL CUTSI RD2D7 P,"h,M" Pock IG""" Av, "'o..ioo to "'.807 M,m"i,IP"" RD206 M'"", P"kw" F,,"woV Sig.. 249,725 {II Pon Di".i" CIP "4',725 RD119A {""", Moo,m,", SigP1 IB,""", $16,168 BF25 City E",cySigP1 24,475 LOI05 MTDB Right-ol-W,V l'M""" Imp".'mO"" 81,000 109,251 MTDB Billboo'dlfu"d '81,000 Ii"'- BF38 . BF401 CFOI COO""g""" 5,660 ORIOIF Tol'g"ph C'"voo Flood Cootlol "S,OOO ",- 6,782 ICI A~V C"p R,imb",om,", "5,000 PR121 C M"i",Vi,wP"k Bo'- 25,033 {CI NON-PRIORITY SUBTOTAL $106,000 $"',418 $367,482 FUND 995 TOTAL $491,785 $233,80' $430,340 ICIC~plo"d {II C,""I ,i"" thi, i, i"tho Pon CIP Recommended Project Disposition Several projects have been designated as priority in the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Project area. Of the priority projects, RD118 (Town Centre I Parking Structure) RD208 (Church and Center Street Parking Lot) are completed and RD112 (Demolition of the San Diego Shipbuilding) is expected to be completed by the end of this fiscal year. Project balances from those completed projects ($62,858) are recommended to be cancelled. The Agency has a contractual obligation to reimburse $301,112 to Rohr, Inc. for work Rohr completed at 850 Lagoon Drive. Of that amount, it is recommended (in a related Agenda Statement) that $271,112 be reimbursed to Rohr immediately and $30,000 be retained until correction of a sewer monitoring facility is completed; and, then the $30,000 will be reimbursed to Rohr (anticipated by June 1996). The $98,388 recommended to be deferred for RD220 (Rohr Public Improvements) are funds designated by the Agency (contractually) for payment to the City's Traffic Fund to pay for 83% of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive. The signal is not warranted at this time, therefore funding can be deferred until installation of the signal is required. 3-tf cip95 (J,nu"" 18, 1996 (2,27 pmll Page 5, Item 30-..'¡" Þ Meeting Date ~ ~ The BayfrontlT own Centre I Redevelopment Project's share of GG 1 04 (Geographic Information System) is recommended to be retained to meet current contractual commitments. The recommended deferral of $10,000 for the Geographic Information Systems is for services that can be deferred until 1996-97 fiscal year. PR168 (Memorial Park Phase II) entails the reconstruction of restrooms within the~ park. Bids have been received and a contract for the work'is pending. Park Acquisition & Development Fee funds are recommended as an alternative source for the Redevelopment Agency's share of the Memorial Park improvements. In the non.priority project list, LD105 (including BF38 and BF40), (Landscaping MTDB Right. of.Way) is recommended to be partially funded at this time. This project involves landscaping along the trolley line basically where it intersects with public streets. Alternative funding through the MTDB Billboard Fund may be available for about $81,000 of the project. (The use of MTDB Billboard funding and I.S.T.E.A. funding was approved by the City Council at the December 5, 1995, meeting.) One set of banners was installed in the Downtown area through RD119A (Town Centre I' Monument Signs [BannersJl. The project is in the process of reevaluation and the project balance is being recommended to be deferred at this time and will be forwarded for Agency consideration in a future CIP budget. The accounting for the (DR101F) Telegraph Canyon Flood Control project will be completed in fiscal year 1995.96. It is anticipated that the Army Corp of Engineers will be reimbursing the City between $50,000 and $75,000 of the portion of the project that was pre-paid to the Corp. In the interim, it is necessary to replace the survey monuments within the project area that were disturbed during construction. That work is currently underway at a cost of $25,000. The Marina Parkway Freeway Signs(RD206) are included in the Port District Capital Improvement Program and do not need to be in the Redevelopment Agency CIP. The majority of properties that will benefit directly from the installation of the signs are located within the Port District's jurisdiction. Only two small (1.6-acre) undeveloped commercial lots, located in the City and directly adjacent to the freeway ramp would appear to benefit. (PR121C). Marina View Park project is completed and is being closed-out. The project balance can be cancelled. The budgets for the (BF25) City Entry signs and (RD207) Panhandle Park definitions need reevaluation, as do the project budgets. It is recommended that City entry signs proposed at the entryways to the City and the Panhandle park extension (landscaping of Garrett Avenue between F Street and Center Street) be resubmitted for consideration in a future year CIP. Recommended Funding Sources Alternative funding sources have been identified for the proposed priority projects in BayfrontlTown Centre I. Several projects and project balances are recommended to be cancelled, and two projects are recommended to be deferred. Projects being recommended to be retained will need $491,785 in funding. Discussion regarding funding sources follows: clp95 IJanua'Y 18, 1998 [2,27 pmll 3-5 Page 6,Item 3o"oi/P Meeting Date 1/23:99- ~llprq(,., Since 1985, the Redevelopment Agency contributed a sum of $1,712,196 for the purchase, improvement, and renovation of parking facilities located within the Downtown Parking District. Only a portion of the parking improvements were financed by contributions from the Parking Meter and the In- Lieu Parking Funds (see Attachment B Summary of Parking Improvements). The Parking District (and Parking Meter Fund) was originally adopted in 1963 under the Parking District Law of 1951 for the purpose of establishing a revenue source for the creation and maintenance of common parking area in the Downtown Business Area. The Redevelopment Agency, through the Town Centre I Project redevelopment effort, helped the District renovate parking lots and construct new parking lots that otherwise may not have been available to the District because of limited revenue availability. An increase in the number of parking spaces and the quality of parking lots within the Parking District were objectives identified as part of the Downtown redevelopment effort. The Parking District did not have the over $2.5 million needed to install the improvements that were constructed between 1985 and 1993. The Redevelopment Agency approved $1.7 million over the 9.year period to enable the improvements to be installed and to be useful within a reasonable element. In view of the current Redevelopment Agency budget constraints, it is being recommended that the Parking District reimburse the Agency for its prior years financial contributions to parking improvements so those funds can be reinvested into current redevelopment projects. Currently, the public parking lots are being used at 50% to 75% overall capacity depending on the day of the week. Therefore, it is not anticipated that additional parking improvements will be necessary in the near future. Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate the unencumbered balance of the Parking Meter Fund in the amount of $154,200 and the In.lieu Parking Fee Fund in the amount of $134,000 to the Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund Balance as partial reimbursement for installed parking facilities located within the Downtown Parking District. These funds then will be available to fund the remaining unfunded, priority capital projects for the Bayfront Town Centre I Project. Staff also is recommending that a percentage (an amount to be determined) of future annual unencumbered revenues from Fund 230, Parking Meter Fund be appropriated to the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund Balance until the balance of the Agency's expenditures ($1,423,996) has been paid. It is estimated that the reimbursement will be between $20,000 and $40,000 annually. These funds then will be available for reinvestment in future redevelopment projects. In additon, it is recommended that $50,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund be appropriated to reimburse Rohr Inc. for a portion of a sewer monitoring facility Rohr installed in the Midbayfront. The Metropolitan Sewer District required the sewer monitoring facility to be built in the Midbayfront when Rohr constructed the office .3 -h c;p95 (JanuaOf 18, 1996 {2,27 pm] Page 7, Item ~<tIb Meeting Date 1/23.'9& ~/f..I'f{o building at 850 Lagoon Drive. The monitoring facility is designed to meter the amount of sewage that enters the sewer system from the Midbayfront. Since Rohr's building was the first to be constructed in the Midbayfront, it was Rohr's responsibility to install the facility which has the capacity to serve future development in the area. The Redevelopment Agency approved reimbursement of $50,000 of the construction cost via an Owner Participation Agreement. The Director of Public Works agrees that the construction of this seiNer facility is an appropriate use of Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds. The Fine Arts Fund has an unappropriated balance of $283,00 and there are no near term plans for the expenditure of the funds; therefore, staff recommends that the Fine Arts Fund loan to the Bayfront/Town Centre $26,013. Also, staff proposes that the Fine Arts Fund loan be repaid in FY 1996-97 from the proceeds received by the Redevelopment Agency from the Parking Meter Fund. Combined with the anticipated Army Corp reimbursement for the Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel, Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds, Park Acquisition and Development Fund money for Memorial Park restrooms, and the Parking Meter Fund and In. Lieu Fee Fund repayments, the priority projects for Bayfront/Town Centre I will be fully funded. OTAY VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT FUND 996 FUND 4..6 - DTAY VALLEY ROAD P'ojoe! 4 p"Joe! T"'. R.,oI" D.... C.oool N"".Tn too"m." F""""" Soo". PRIORITY PROJECTS RD133 Auto P"k "",083 R,'mb",.m... F,".. Fm' ",. "n083 R"mb",,~,", Joo'"" "0,000 ST123 0.., V.II., Roo' Wld..,", '00,788 T"",Not F,", "00,788 RD'05 A"'m,'Sh,".. 8" ".8'4 lei GGt04 Goo '"'mm.""" 8,380 15,000 FI", An Food l"," '8,380 PRIORITY SU8TOTAl 1401.'" 15,000 ".824 NON.PRIORITY (POTENTIAL CUTSI RO217 A""""," Shl""h", Bor '6,764 ICI NON-PRIORITY SUBTOTAL 0 0 6,76' I FUND ..6 TOTAL I "Ot.'5' I ",000 I I I ",588 (C) Completed Recommended Project Disposition RD133 (Auto Park) was established for the clearance and sale of Agency.owned property for the Business Homes project. The project budget includes soils testing for both the former Fuller Ford and former South Bay Chevrolet sites and relocation and demolition costs for the Fuller Ford site. Funding for this project is recommended to be retained. ST123 (Otay Valley Road Widening) is currently underway and is scheduled for completion by March 1996, therefore TransNet funding in 1995.96 is recommended. Funds are available in the 1995.96 TransNet account and the project qualifies within the TransNet guidelines as administered by SANDAG. RD217 (Shinohara Acquisition) is complete and the balance of the project can be cancelled. A portion ($5,000) of Otay Valley's share of GG104 (Geographic Information System) can be deferred until 1996-97; however, $8,380 is committed to an active contract and should be retained. 3-7 "pB' IJanua'Y18,IBB6(2,27pmJl Page 8. Item 3 t\~ Meeting Date 1/23/96 ~fø Recommended Funding Source Funding for these 1995-96 priority projects is not available from the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project tax increment funds; therefore, it is being recommended that alternative funding be approved. The work to be completed in RD133 (Auto Park) is recommended to be funded from the proceeds of the Fuller Ford property sale in the amount of $172.083 plus a $20,000 developer contribution toward site cleanup for a total project of $192,083. The Agency appropriated $41,297 of the project total on December 5, 1995. (Joelen Enterprises will reimburse the Agency $20,000 of that amount.) The balance of the project to be appropriated by the Agency at this time is $150,786. It is recommended that TransNet funds be used to complete the 1995-96 ST123 (Otay Valley Road Widening) and a loan in the amount of $8,380 from the Fine Art Fund be approved for the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project's share of the GG104 (Geographic Information System) program. TOWN CENTRE II - FUND 997 FUND #997 - TOWN CENTRE II Project TItle Cancel Non.Tax Incremant Funding Source GG143 I Auto Budget Sys $10.758 Fine Art Fund Loan $10,758 R0215 I Paint Pit Removal $111,556 Bal $159,049 (C) Loan from General Fum$111 ,556 PRIORITY SUBTOTAL $t22,314 0 $169.049 Paint Pit Prudential Overall Bal $5,322 (C) NON-PRIORITY SUBTOTAL 6,322 I FUND 997 TOTAL I $122.314 I 01 $164,371 I 1 (CJ Completed Recommended Project Disposition The Town Centre II Project has the most limited redevelopment capital project budget. Alternative funding sources have been found for the two priority projects. RD218 (Paint Pit Prudential Overall) has been completed and the balance can be cancelled. Recommended Funding Source Funding for the Town Centre II's portion of GG143 (Automated Budget System) is recommended to be retained. RD215 (Public Works Paint Pit Removal) was reviewed by the City Council on October 17, 1995 and a loan to Town Centre II from the General Fund was approved for the project. A $10,758 loan from the Fine Art Fund 911 is recommended to fund Town Centre II's portion of GG143 (Automated Budget System). SOUTHWEST. FUND The Southwest Redevelopment Project Area does not have any CIP projects. 3-cf cip95 (Janus", 18,199612,27 pmll Page 9, Item 3",,4- Þ Meeting Date 1/23/96 . ;L It.. I (No LOW - MODERATE HOUSING FUND 998 FUND #998 - LOW/MODERATE Project Title Non-Ta. Increment Funding Source GG154 LOB/CD Modifications $29,517 Low/Mod Ho"sing Fund $29.517 RO132 Mobilehome Space Rent 3,950 Non-Agency Funds' R0214 ROR SPA III Afford. 378,280 Low/Mod Housing Fund $378,280 PRIORITY SUBTOTAL $411,747 0 a Sweetwater Mobile Home Park Sweetwater Mobile Home Park NON-PRIORITY SUBTOTAL I FUND 998 TOTAL I $411,747 I 01 $776,936 I I Recommended Project Disposition The Low. Moderate Housing Fund is a restricted fund; however it is funded by redevelopment tax increment. After reviewing the Low. Moderate Housing capital project list, it is being recommended that three out of four projects be retained. GG154 (Legislative Office Building/Community Development) is committed to an active contract to create space in the Legislative Office Building for the Housing Division of Community Development and the BECA staff. (At a joint meeting on December 12, 1996 the Agency/Council authorized an additional appropriation of $3,517 from the Low/Mod Housing fund to the existing CIP ($26,000) for a total project of $29,517. RD132 (Mobilehome Space Rent) is an escrow account to hold non.City/Agency funds (donated by the mobile home park owners) for mobile home park resident/owner mediation. RD214 (Rancho del Rey SPA III Affordable Housing) consists of funds for the City's subsidy participation in Rancho del Rey to provide affordable housing in the future Cordova apartment project conditioned on the project receiving a tax award. The Agency renewed the conditional funding for one year on December 5, 1995. RD126 and RD126C (Sweetwater Mobile Home Park) provide funding for the effort to build or acquire a relocation mobile home park. The relocation mobilehome park has been intended to provide housing opportunities for residents of mobilehome parks in the City that are not zoned MHP.only and that may convert to the underlying zoning---commercial or multi.family residential. Since the relocation mobile home park project was initiated, various approaches have been pursued over the years. The Agency bought the Sweetwater Valley site from the County of San Diego, but developing it as a relocation mobile home park proved prohibitively expensive and met with great neighborhood opposition. The Agency negotiated to buy an existing mobilehome park (Bayscene), but negotiations failed over the poor condition of the park, J---~ 1 Funds donated by mobile home park owners dp95 (J,nu,ry 18,1996 [2,27 pmll Page 10, Item ~ ~ Meeting Date -1/23/96 ~(., It is felt that a relocation mobilehome park has proven not to be feasible. Building a new one is not financially feasible and is very difficult to site. Buying an existing park is very expensive and poses huge challenges in the areas of rehabilitation, maintenance, and management. Most importantly, the need for a relocation mobilehome park has not been demonstrated over time. The City has a mobilehome park closure and relocation ordinance that protects residents from inappropriate closures and provides them with financial and technical assistance from the owner. The City is giving residency preference in new affordable housing projects to mobilehome park displacees, an approach which has been quite effective. For instance, in the 28-unit Park Village Apartment project, subsidized by the City, nine of the units were provided to displacees from a closed mobilehome park, Since the effort began to create a relocation mobilehome park, four parks have closed, and all residents were accommodated in some way. They were not all happy about the outcome, but the closures did not create a significant social crisis. With the downturn in the regional economy, no additional parks have been closed in favor of new development for some time. It is staffs opinion that Low - Moderate Housing fund should be redirected to more pressing housing needs; therefore, it is recommended that the relocation mobilehome park project be cancelled. Funds are available from the Low - Moderate Housing - Fund 998 and the Mobilehome Space Rent account to fund those projects recommended to be retained. FISCAL IMPACT A summary of the current Agency funded CIP projects with staff's recommendations is listed below: SUMMARY Project TItle Recommend Recommended Alternative Funding Source Recommend Recommend Retain Defer Cancel Fund 995 - Bayfront/Town $491,7B5 Parking Meter Fund $154,200 $233,809 $430,340 Centre In. Lieu Parking Fee Fund 134.000 Trunk Sewer Cap. Res, Fund$50,000 Fine Art Fund Lòan 26,013 Park Acquisition & Development Fund 21.572 MTDB Billboard Fund 81,000 Army Corp Reimbursement 25,000 $491.785 Fund 996 - Otay Valley Road 401.251 Fuller Ford site sale $172,083 5.000 9,58B Joelen Enterprises Reimburse 20,000 TransNet Fund 200, 7B8 Fine Art Fund Loan 8,3BO $401,251 Fund 997 - Town Centre II 122.314 Fine Art Fund Loan $ 10.758 o 164,371 Generai Fund Loan 111 556 $122,314 SUBTOTAL $1,015,350 $1,015,350 $238,809 $604,299 Fund 998 - RDA $411,747 o $776,936 Low/Moderate Housing TOTAL $1.427,097 I I $238,809 I $1,381,235 crp95 (Ja"uary1B,199612,27pmll .3 ' /0 Page 11, Item 3...... -..v~ Meeting Date ~ :L '" ql:> Redevelopment tax increment set.aside funds are available in the Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund 998 to fund the $408,230 proposed to be retained for Low/Moderate Income Housing projects. No tax increment funding is being recommended for Redevelopment Project Area CIP projects. The alternative funding sources recommended for projects proposed to be retained include eligible City and other agency funds, In addition, two repayable loans are recommended to be made: one from the General Fund and one from the Fine Art Fund. (The General Fund 100 Loan in the amount of $111,556 for the Paint Pit clean-up was previously approved by the Council/Agency on 10/17/95,) The funds impacted by recommended alternative funding sources are listed below with the total amounts recommended to be allocated. Parking Meter Fund 230 $154,200 In-lieu Parking Fund 231 134,000 Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund 222 50,000 Park Acquisition & Development Fund 420 21,572 MTDB Billboard Fund 81,000 Army Corp Reimbursement 25,000 Fuller Ford site sale 172,083 Joelen Enterprises Reimbursement 20,000 TransNet Fund 603 200,788 Total Non-refundable Funding $ 858,643 Fine Art Fund 991 Loan $ 45,151 General Fund 1oO Loan $111,556 Total Refundable Funding 156,707 Total Alternative Funding $1,015,350 Summarv The result of the CIP re-evaluation is that the total $3,047,141 Agency CIP funding is recommended to be reduced by cancelling the combined balance of non.priority projects and completed project savings in the amount of $1,381,235 and deferring non-priority projects in the amount of $238,809. The deferred projects can be re.submitted in future CIP budgets for City Council/Agency consideration. A total of $1,015,350 in priority projects is recommended to be retained in the 1995-96 CIP and funded from alternative funding sources rather than Redevelopment Tax Increment revenue. A total of $411,747 in projects funded from the Redevelopment Tax Increment, Low/Moderate Housing Fund would remain. IPRB/95CIP.REV/RDACIPDISK] -3 - /1 cip95 (Janua", 18, 199812,27 pmll This page blank. S- /Í- / MINUTES /' TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE CITY OF CHULA VISTA :\ Thursdày, September 21, 1995 ~ Council Conference Room 8:45 a.m. \)~ City Hall 1. Roll Call: 8:58 a.m. Members Present: Chairman Blakely. Members Altbaum, Apoda<;a. Killian. Members Excused: Vice Chairman Winters and Members Hawk and Mason. Staff Present: Principal Community Development Specialist Pamela Buchan and Community Development Specialist. Miguel Tapia. MSC (Killian/Altbaum!14-0-3, Hawk, Winters and Mason absent) to excuse members Hawk, Winters and Mason absence from this meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 7, 1995. MSC (Altbaum/Killianl (4-0-3, Hawk, Winters end -Mason ebsent! to approve minutes as mailed. PARKING BUSINESS 3. Beetion of Officers. This item was tabled until the next meeting. 4. MSC (KfllianIBlakely! (3-1-3, Member Altbaum opposed! to approve" staff's recommendation that the City Council appropriate $164,200 from the Parking Meter Fund 230 end $134,000 from the In-Ueu Parking Fee Fund 231 end 60% of future Mnual unencumbered revenues from the Parking Meter Fund 230 to the Bayfront Town Centre I Redevelopment Project fund balance to reimburse the Agency for parking Improvements up to the. amount of $1A23,996. 6, CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chairman Blakely stated that he would like staff to bring back Information on' parking signs and the ordinance. 6. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Altbaum stated that he will be reporting on the Mayor's COmmittee on every agenda. 7. STAFF COMMENTS: None 8. PUBUC COMMENTS: None , 9, ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was ~ioumed at 10:13 a,m,. to the nextregulàr meeting of October 6, 1996. (tcpacmindisklb:~2 1.-S;.mIn] J-13 - '---"------------------ .-.. - --.- --- - . , This page blank. .3-/1 <I: " 0 NI""NO ~ '" 0 0 - I- ~ ~ ~~O::g ~ ~ g g Z 0 m":w'o:i":ò": m": ",' w '" "'N~N"""- '<t 00 N .~ .~ '" '" '" ~ '" '" ~ '" Ê u -g ~ . " <I: ::J ~ ~ E'" ~ ~ 1= '; ~ ~ c ~~ ~ -g ~ « ¡¡ ~ ~~f,}ci. ~ tÌ.ß ~ ~ ~ -' '; ð ~ 9: 'E .~ !; 'C 'C'C-g'C~ 'C ~ ~ a: .E § § § tÌ §;; § .2,Q e- ~ ';;, u.';;,t';;,~ ';;, .~ ¡¡; <3 I;' ~ cj~«~~ ~ 0 ~ > 5 :;; -O;:;;,~:;;2:;; ~ I- E Z Il. 1l.1l.u.1l.1- Il. Il.::;; « QQ. QQ ~ . t ~ ~ ~::¡ :; ~ ~ g~~:;:: ~ :; co 00 0 Q) 00 I' '<t "'I'0q- P) 0 0 m '" Ñ o:i m'¡ o:io:ilÒ": ò t '" """ "'q-N .N"'P)O . "' "'N 0;.P)q-1l. 0;. '" 1D00 C ID 0; ID'- ID " 0 - c 00 NO 00 ~ '" '" '¡¡¡ 00 0'" '" '" ~ 0 ä; '" OM ~ N q- Q) 0 ~ oò Ò<ò o:i m IÒ '" :¡¡ ~ ~~:::;; ~ ~::¡ 0 . . ~ - è '" ON ON ~IO 0 0010.2 ~. 0 1'0 ~ 000 0 0 0 Q) 15. ..:.f¡j ;;,~~:::::::;¡ :3 :;}â~'5 ~J1 Nq- g~:¡¡ 00 ~:: ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ £ ""'I:" 0 010 0 0010 0 0000 0000 10 -g 1iíç:j~,g g ~~ ~ ~gg¡ 8 gg~g¡ ~g8~ ;¡: .2 Otè",æ IÒ "'~ oì "ècò oì èè"cò ~èèoì cò t "'~~~ 10 NO ~ -~~ <0 <O~N- -O~ ~ " .S.s,¡:e ... - ~ 't 0 ... N N ~-O) 0 '0 ~,~ "" ..: ... '" c. õ <:> ~ ... ... <; Õ - ~ '" -' -'-'0 co '" <C <C «'0. ::,g b ~ ",'i ebb E ~ ].¡¡¡ Ii; ¡¡-,~~ g Ii; :;; ] 0; 0. 0. '" õ:;) ~t:"'1D 0:;) '" '" !::!:! ¡¡¡ ~:= -'E'" .f~-; "C '" '" ~ 0 - =" """,> ii-;;c 0> 0 '" .- w 0 "'~ E c~!:: ~,!!!,,'" .2 I- Z 1;; a: :¡r "'~ ":>2~a: :';<;Eêñ ~ u. ¡¡: :;) . :::> I- i5 ~g ¡; :';"'0 eJELL~ 3: c""o LL õi ~ Il.~ C. Il.c¡¡: ;">¡¡"'o g,:.;¡¡: .. > 0 :¡¡ ""'" E ~,21l. iñ:';::;~E6,õ ",Cll.,\- ¡¡¡ i w z-! '" ~g> -;;:=~ 1-1l.J3t:êêñi; '1Jð~~ 'ê' s ~ 3:'- 5 -:>2 '-= (3~ i3~ccoo~.Q> C.c,-z Il. ~ U o~ :E .~:.; ~:c'Ë -,-g;~~::;;:=a: ~g.~ ¡¡- 1::0 Õ Oil. 0- <CCOcc=WID '-o,c ~ ì!! !z.~ ~ ~ü -§]g ~~~'¡ijt;.~~ §,*'¡ij -Ë. ri Oil. 0::;1- a: OeJ W Il.w::;.E 0::; 01-::;; E f a: '" I- 0 LL I- 0 0 > 0 . 0... - e, <C Wõ - õ u ~"" ó.~ i:: « ¿-g LL - ~ IO~ IfN 0000 0 1Dq- -I' """ ",co ~~ ~ 0 m]. >::~~:: ~~:: ~~ ~::~~~~o~~ õi ..!:! I-Ou.a:O 0 oeJ a:O oOu.ou.u.u.a:a: > 00.. ¡¡:a:IDIl.a: a: a:eJ ,\-a: a:a:ID-'IDIDOCIl. () z 0 z '-- "C :;) ¡¡: 0 £ LL Il. Z <I: M 000 0 I- 00 000 00 Z '" 0 0"" M W.S Ñ ÒÒ ai ~ § ~ ~~ Co) LL <I: ~ " :;; jj :: EI! '5 ~ c: <I: ~ ::I LL..., :g g~ 1: 1: '0 -' - "" c: '0 ~ Ii Ii.,.r § ";' ~ '* ~.¡¡¡" ~ 5 .È(IJ.Èe.~ < z .~ ~ '~Ë ~ .~ a:LLa:W I- LL Q Q ~ ;!;;;!j ;l; ~ g¡ co 00 co 1'1' '" U Ñ Ñ ~~ m . -¡;j á'j OJ 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 :;; '" '" '" '¡j 0 M co o~ 0 ~ 5 . 00 00 00 '" '" .- ¡¡;.~ ~ ¿:~ ~ .g N en 1ií en 0 0 0 ~ en 0: ~ N '" '" " ~ '0 . '" I' c: ~"I;" ~ :¡:¡:ns!g ~:g::! 'g ",ç:¡,g - cooOQ;> """ - .z ::111::'1;... ..¡: "'cò<òcò e:)e:)"': ~ ~Õi'~~ ~ :;;--:g ~~ g¡ .~ 1;j,sc!::e ...:- <>< <'Ì còcò '" e o'~ ¡¡;... ......... ... a. ",0 ~ 5 c: - ~ ~ .E -' -' -' 0 U <I: <I: <I: g. - I- I- I-~ 0 0 0 0 - .. I- I- I- '1;; co '" OJ OJ CD ~ .. c:::;¡::;¡ en ., !: B [, fI) fI) en iiJ .S! :¡¡ ~ ~ co~ ~(IJ 'CO ] 3: ä: ~ä:::;¡ [ ::¡ - '0 0 00 LL ¡;; 0 :g 5ä: Ui,sä: 'if ~ Jj ~ 0: 11 'j¡¡ Q. !:; ¡¡¡ ~ .!!' ¡ 9: o:~ '" ~~E u50 £ ~ Co) >-1- 0; '¡ij(IJ0 -,:"z '0 - ~b Q. >0;1: S.!!2:J i!! ;¡!.~ E ~.s-;;!zs. ~ ::; >0: fI),ii õ~~~.:t E ~ >- I- 0 0 ] <I: U Q. U . I- ~ - Ü & '?. 0 ~ - :¡; CD~ g:M MID'" ä:I' ~ g¡.~ >-~ ~~~ ON '. 0 .. e 1-0 I-OC1 ä:c 'i 00.. ä:a: (lJa:C1 "ra: > Z 0 Z "::> ä: 0 a¡ LL Q. Z a: « ~ ~ :g:g w " ..... "? :iE Jj ò;: J: '" ;;; ~ U .5 <J> ~ § -g ~ ~ ~ « E c: - "E ~ ~ ...J c: i!! 'C " " c: t:) c: " - ~ E ¡; t:: e I- «- .: " c: 0 c: '" z ü:.3 ¡¿ m m ('oj N ~ <t<t ('ojN ..... 00 MM M ;; .,;.,; I!Ì '" .¡ " tD '" <J> <J> CD ~ :;;;;; -¡¡; ;;; -¡¡; '" '" 0 0 0 ¡; ;; Q c: 0 DO CD <t 0 <t 'g, . tDtD~ ~ 1:: M - .5 ": "? "!. "!. ~ tD '" O~N N " en~ ~~N N 'C en a: <J>~~ ~ '" ~ <J> <J> <J> c: . ~ ..... c: tí c: "'°'" 00 '" ,¡: ã,Ç§ ~ ~g~ gg ~ 'U "Q;~... ...,"',,¡ ~~ ò'.!!!. «ë¡;.~~ -~::: "'I') ~.e ¡ :~~ [ ... ... ...... ... ~ r;, ¿¡ ~ ~ c: 0 ~ ~ .!2 ...J...J ...J i!! u « « « :::: õ b b b ~ .. I- I- I- .. §: ~ ~~ ~ ~ "¡:; 8 UJ ~UJ en § æ E ~ 0 ~ ~ . ¡¡; ¡;; 2_;;:¡¡¡~;;::J ~ >:!!. ~~ol-EO ~ " A W = UJO;;::J,,;;:.!!!. ~ !!: ~.!! ~ ~"-~2~ ~ ~ U I-¡;: .g"; :;!;';:O ijJ ~ Zw ".- I- ,- Z ~ ¡s: b '" "- Z 0.. .!! - u" UJoE WE ~ - Z'O 1-;'- 1-,- E f :::ci: u«~ o~ 0 0 W "- U I- ., -- - - I!> ," 0 ~ ~ ~b Œ~~;;:~ ~ en .!!!, > ~ ('oj 0 ('oj .Jf 0 .. 2 I-CJc ¡¡:c ãi co.. ;;:CJa: ITa: > Z Q Z CD':J a: 0 "C ~ "- Z CD a: « ~ z w :2 ~ "g :I: ~ '" N 0 5 m 05 « '" N" ~ '" .... '" ~ c .... « 'S c 'C 'C ::J C C U. ::J::J ~ U. U. ~ .~.~ " '" '" ~ ::J::J U 0 0 .5 I I >< 'C 'C ., 0 0 .... :;::;: C: ~ ~ 0 0 0 Z ...J...J 0 """fD fD " fD '" '" - "~en en " - - - . u ~"'fD fD C <1""" " ., ...."" " U .... ~ 0 0 0 ai ~ 0 "00" 0" G. ~"'CXI<I' <I' en.5 "?,q"!,,,: "': <I' en., en",CXI~ ~ ~~ N"~ ~ ,..:a: ~ "'~ ~ 1;; ¡¡,"C" 0001:) ""'0) 0) ~c:¡~,g gg~~ g¡~g¡ ~ ,,~ut ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~Ìii'~Ç, '" "I:) <0-0) I:) ¿¡ ," ~ e '" 'It <0 <0 '1 ",.~ Ç, .... .... ""....- .~ I:) ~ .... 0 Õ ...J '" ",...J ...J C - <I: ~ ~ <I: <I: 0 0 .... ~~"""""¡:: :: ~ ""~ ~ '§ :¡ E ~ ~~~ D) :¡ g ê~.'" II", g¡ 'C B ~ ,g~'E~ -~~~ 0 .~ '-..c .,.,0- "'00- Z 'C ~;; ~~~:5 ~:;::;::5 ~ § iii !;to!! -g~=æ Uaiaiæ :: - &!i ffi¡!: :;:,g~ ~~~Z .~ i D.. ot; 8"'" ....~...o ~ 1i! - O.!!, -:¡Sa: ¡¡¡g¡g¡z ~ g 0 :E2 ",-goo ....:::: 0 ,. ~o.. !:;...J:;:a: oenen - !!; 0 w !!:.'-f- i5 - "7.. ci ~ U ~ i D)t; g:<I'N<t ã:fDfD - -Ii en" """~ ONN ':ii l!> ~'ê' ~;,c~ ã:cc 1ií ~ 00.. ã:CJa:a: 0,. a: a: g¡ i z 0 z en 'u .2 ~ æ ~ .- () > () "C () a: « I- Z w :iE J: 0 00 - '" CO It> U .. 00 I"- '" M M « -;; "'. "? "'. ~ "!. ~ 1= ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ « 0 '" '" '" . .., f-- - 2! ~ g 0 ~ 0 ~ .. 00 0 00 00 B g ...; ~ ~ 00 N N N " '" "'.., .. II: f-- - OOOMNOOI It> MOOOO~- oocol 0 000-1"-00 00 00 0 0000 It> It> It> It> NOOOlt>OO I"- OOl"-MN,...It> '" B '¡'¡ò";":":It>": Ñòòoo": ò- ...; g It>MIt>NNooN ~ ~N~ ~ q : '" '" '" '" '" :;; " :¡; " ~ ~ " ~ .. .. E .i!: -g " :¡¡ :;; ~ § E 5 E "u. u." .c S §.; ~ ~ .ê ë( ,,~£,,¡¡-g~ ..£"" " "" .",E~.c -¡¡;'" '" "," ~ .ru.!ij-og.u.E "':¡: 0 o:g " ",0...J-;;",- ...""...J...J...J >- Ë $,!;; æ-g d£ .¡¡ e-§-g -g-g II: E ..t:~~o.cc. "Su.~ ~~.. « 8 :;:~~~-gffið 5.fi,¡¡;~ ~~Oi. ¡¡¡1 ~ .~¡¡",,«"'aJ> ':¡¡::::¡« «~~ It> ..:: t::::;§:gt:gE ~-;;æ:g :g¡¡- ~ ~É.=ü:~:;:~ .r.!i.=ü: Ü:e>", - - "It> -.. 0,...,... "00 It> It> .. '" ...,... N M '" ,... 0 B C;; ;; ~:!!;::::i 0.. .. .. - 0 .. .. " II: .. £ '" :;; '" :;; - - "( ¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :;; ~t~: ;:: ð:;;::: ~ ~.~& :3 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ,§ :~Q; ~ Ñ aì Ñ ,.: .¡.~ 0 ~ '" :;; '" :;; ~ I: - - ~ ~.. ;i;i .~ "'::. to- to- " ~ 8 " ~ ~ ~~ > " :g =!!! {j õ î w ~ II: i!! I/) o-g ,!!!, s !!: ~ ~ E ~.r ~ š u § ~ 8 ~~ 5 i ~ ".- - - ~ ~ ~ ;H 15 ~ aJ 0 to- 1I::r: c. i ~ It> co,... 00 .:: ~ .fi to- '" '" '" '" 1;; a; !!> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tí ~ 'II '0" C C C .. on ~ ô:.r .r.r.r ~ §o 0 - -.- - ãi - :!i ~ æ ~ ~ ~ ~ This page blank. 9-;¿V / / / Attachment .~. FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING LOTS Downtown Parkin9 District Redevelopment In.Ueu Parking Meter Funds Parking Fee Fund Total Parking Lot Improvements 1985 to 1990: 230 Church Avenue 281 Church Avenue ChurchlMadrona (temp. lot) Subtotal - 1985 to 1990 ImpVts $599.794 $126.500 $1.125 $ 727.419 263 Landis Avenue 144.812 0 0 144.812 281-285 Landis Avenue 553.300 135.500 0 688.800 Church Avenue/Center Street 414,290 128.000 498.710 1.041.000 Total $1.712.196 $390.000 $488,835 $2.602.031 J' CurTent Unencumbered Fund Balances And Recommended Appropriation To Bayfront Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund 995 Fund 230 Parking Meter Fund Current Unencumbered Balance' $154.200 Fund 231 In-lieu Parking Fee Current Unencumbered Balance 134.000 Total avaIlable end recommended to be appropriated to Agency $288.200 Perking Improvements funded by $1,712,196 'Redevelopment Agency funds 230 & 231 Reimbursed . 288.200 Total future relmburument at $1.423.996 .20,000 to ~,OOO ennuelly (c:ipattch.113/c1p95crlSk! 3 -.:LJ 'Balance after encumbrances. recommand8d rueMI, and futun¡ 1995.96" 1996-97 CapItal Project projections...,... calculated This page blank. 2-J?- RESOLUTION NO.J.!JJ 5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 11 MODIFYING THE 1995.96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; 21 APPROPRIATING $154,200 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND 230 AND APPROPRIATING $134,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE IN.LlEU PARKING FEE FUND 231,31 DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, REIMBURSEMENT OF A PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE PARKING METER FUND TO REIMBURSE THE BA YFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND UNTIL $1,423,996 HAS BEEN REIMBURSED; 41 APPROPRIATING $21,572 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FUND 420 TO CIP PROJECT PR168, 51 REAPPROPRIATING $200,788 FROM ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE TRANSNET FUND 603 FROM PROJECT ST961 TO CIP PROJECT ST123 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS, AND 61 APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF FUND 222 . TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO CIP PROJECT RD220 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency budget is constrained and projected tax increment revenues will be needed to fund Redevelopment Agency's operations and obligations; WHEREAS, Redevelopment Agency's Capital Improvement Program has been reviewed and the Redevelopment Agency as a source of funding has been evaluated; WHEREAS. as a result of said evaluation, all Agency CIP projects were prioritized and all projects not deemed as priority were recommended to be cancelled or deferred unless non.impacting funding sources are available for non.priority project funding; WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the following non.redevelopment funding sources: Park Acquisition and Development Fund and Transnet Fund fund certain priority projects; WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Parking Meter Fund and the In- Lieu Parking Fee Fund reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for parking improvements installed within the Parking District by the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS. Rohr Inc. installed a sewer monitoring facility in the Midbayfront as required by the Metropolitan Sewer District that will have capacity for and benefit to future development in the Midbayfront. .3 ~ ;.3 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby 'find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1) The 1995.96 Capital Improvement Program is hereby modified in accordance with Attachment A as herein attached; 2) $154,200 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Parking Meter Fund 230 and $134,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the In.lieu Parking Fee Fund 231 is hereby appropriated to Bayfront/Town Centre 1 Redevelopment Fund; 3) Staff shall include, on an annual basis as part of the budget process, reimbursement of a percentage (amount to be determined) of future unappropriated fund balance from the Parking Meter Fund to r~imburse the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund until $1,423,996 has been reimbursed; 4) $21,572 is hereby appropriated from anticipated revenues of the Park Acquisition & Development Fund 420 to CIP Project PR168; 5) $200,788 is hereby appropriated from anticipated revenues of the TRANSNET Fund 603 from project ST961 to CIP project ST123 to replace previously appropriated Redevelopment Agency Funds. 6) $50,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of Fund 222 .Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund is hereby appropriated to crp RD220, PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ~,~~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director M :lsharedlattorneyI95ccrso. rev ¿ --2~ <C '" 0 "'I'-M"'O ~ '" 0 0 - I- ~ ~ :;;~o::15 ~ ~ 8 8 ¡¡¡ .j¡ ~;:;;~~;;;g::, ~;;; ~ ::æ: c> <no <no <no '" <no <no '" <no <no J:,g <no <no ~ ~ § ~ ~ Ëui ~ ~ I- ': ~ ~ ~~ ~ -g '" I- c '" '" c: D-. '" :0:0 <C ~ ~ ~.3~~ ~ "- ~ E '" 0: 0: '" U 0: 13 ~ .¡¡; ~ 'C 'C'C-g'C¡; 'C ~:g 0: .E § §§.¡§:;: § .2,9 e- :¡ ~ ~ ~t ~~ ~ ~ ¡¡¡ <3 I-;" .£ 0.£ « .£ ~.£ 0 g¡ > 6 -g..; -g.~ -g 2 -g '5 f- E z "- "-"-IL"-f- "- ,,-::i: « QQ. QQ ~ . b ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ g~~:;! ~ :~ " ro 0 co ro I'- <I' CDI'-O<l' M 0 U m ",Ñ .ñm<i .ñtÒ.ñ"':òt: <no '" co In <I' '" , '" co M 0 <no <no <no '" -¡¡; ,M <I' "- -¡¡; <no ID -¡¡;.., .., c: ro -¡¡; ID'- ID '" - g ro "'0 ro ~ en en ëñ ro oen CD In ~ 0 <õ M OM ~'" <1""0 ¡; 05 ÒCÒ CD' m .ñ '" æ ~ ~ ~~ :;;~ ~::¡U .., .., .., . . ~ - ¿ en 0 "'0 '" ~'" 0 0 0 ",.S! ~. Ol'-O~ 0'" 0 00"'15. ,..: .~ ~ ~ ~: : :;; :3 ~ â ~5 ~J1 .., "'<I' g ~~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ c> <no .., .., c> ~ ~ ~ "'<t r:: 0 0<0 0 00'" 0 0000 0000 '" c: 'õíQ-,g 8 ~~ ~ g¡8~ 8 88~~ ~88~ ~ ~ 0 Q; 0 .!!! lÒ ",' ",' 0) 't' è CIÒ 0) è è .¡ CIÒ " è è 0) CIÒ b c>~~1 <0 NO ~ -~~ <0 <O~N- -O~ ~ ~ .5.!i¡~e .... - ~ 't 0 .... N N ~-~ 0 õ' ~.~ Ç>, ~ ... Ñ c. u¿¡ ~ ... ... 15 Õ - ~ " ...J ...J ...J 0 ,,0> « ««D- ~ ~ b ~",¡; ebb! g 's- \;; ~ §, § 1: \;; f- "iõ ~ .g, ~,,~::> ~:g<ñ~ <3::> ~ t; <::! 65 3! 1: .:JEI/) ~/1.~:;- 'C I/) en æ .S! ~ 0 ~ e E go ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §, ~ ~ ~ en 1õ 0: g> ~p ~ :.;¡>a: :;;15e<ñ ~ IL a: ::> . ..:! f- i5 .eg e :;;enQ ~EIL~:s: 6~Q IL co z "-~ D- "-c:o: ",>C:" , >",a: .: > ~ æ ""Û) E ¡;.Q"- ëñ~::i:~E§,õ "c:"-":- g ~ w Z .!! en Æ c> ~ 1: ~ f- /1. .s -1" E <ñ .E .~ t3 :;: i5ê' ¡j !!: 3:"" § -~ = ~~ 5Æc:"'0~.Q' c:.eÆz "- è U o~ ..,~:;; ~:!:-E ...J-g.~';;;::i:1:O: ~~~ -g- !::g 'õ Eo~ ~ ¡o- ~1!c:.£-¡¡;wg¡ "'0.5 'ã) ~ f-.- E .e:O0 ~c:"'~~> c:"'~ -' z2 '" "'u o.e'" z"'><'" ",.",f- 0<Õ'" D- ~ 0"- o::i:f- 0: U(9 w,,-w::i:.Eu::i: Uf-::i: E î 0: I/) f- 0 IL f- 0 U ~ frli eo -¡; 13 ~ ";' .. (5 .~ ~ « ~ -g IL - ~ "'~ g:", roro 0 ro<l' -I'- CD'" In'" ~~ .~ 0 g¡.~ >::~~:: ~ ~~ Q~ ~::~~~;fo~~ ~ ..£ ~ê~g:ê ê ê8 ~ê êê~g~~~¡sg: ., ~ 0 Z L- "0 ::> ¡¡: 0 £ IL "- Z <t I- :ri g ~ ¡.s Z en 0 0"" M w.5 Ñ òò ro ~ § ~ ~~ '" U LL <t ~ " :;; Æ I- E " =" " ~ !! :; .L ~ :g " ~ 1: 1: "C ...J .E ",," "C 1.1 ~ ~"'.L § I-;' ~ 2 ~.:¡¡., LL ~ ~~~c.;¡;¡ ~ 2 .ê 'E .ê ~ 16 ~ " 0 " ,,~ .- O::LLO::LU f- LL Q Q ] '<t '<t '<t '<t ex> iã ~ ~ ~~ ~ u Ñ Ñ IDID m "'.., ...,.., - 'iij '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :;; .,; ItÌ ItÌ ;; .., .., .., C M 00 o~ 0 ~ § . '" 00 '" In In .- c: 0 .... M N N 15. ~ ~ ~ g ro c; c; .~ N en 0:: ~ N '<t '<t " ~ .., .., .., "C , en .... " ~<I; â ~ â5~8:g g¡~ ~ 'g enC:¡ ,~ <cecco """..." " Q:: t .1; '" 0) CO' IÒ IÒ è c$ " :: <C-."'" 't """"IlI 't't "'" "",¡;.;¡, N <c '" ee "'.!!. õj .5; <t e ...' Ñ ..¡ IÒ IÒ oì e C'~ ~... ....... .. c. ~o ~ ~ ~ t .2 ...J...J ...J 0 U <c <c <c :¡¡. - >- f- f-~ 0 0 0 0 - '" >- f- f- '1;; co en '" '" () ~ '" ,,::;)::;) en '" <: 1J .¡: IJ IJ en æ 0 " ,,>- >- C IJ .- co "C f- "'f- Z -:a ] :;; ¡¡: ~ ¡¡: ::;) ~ -= - "C Q oQ LL . '" C '" "0:: -" 0:: ~ ~ ;5 fi ~ .g Q. ~ ~ ":- .~ ~ Q. o::~ '" i7]§ ~§i5 ~ ~ U >->- ~ =(/) 0 ...J.-2 :=. ~ü ~ ~'iij'E ::!:§ 11 š: ...J" 0 >E- >-"" - <c '0 ~ '" .- 0 2 C' c. "' ~à: ~~ õ~<3 ~~ ~ i <c u ~ u ~ b!!¡ - Û I!> .. 0 >- - :¡¡ ()~ ffM MI!)'<t ~.... ~ s¡,1!t >-~ ~~::: 0;;;" o..e f-C f-ot:) ¡¡:C ëij C Q. ¡¡: 0:: (/) 0:: t:) ":- 0:: > 2 0 2 Q)::;) ¡¡: 0 -g LL Q. 2 a: <C ~ ~ ~ ~ w 5 .... "'. :æ: IJ ò;: J: '" :;; ~ U .5 '" <c -g " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <c ë ~:: ~ ~ ~ !! " :¡¡ 0 ~ (:) c: " - ~ E ~ t e I- «- C: " c 0 c '" z ü:.3 Q '" en '" N ~ ...... N N .... a 0 M '" '" -¡; aiai LÒIÒ .¡ 0 '" It) '" '" to c ~ ~ ~ ¿:¡ '" '" -¡¡j '" <ã '" '" 0 0 0 åi '¡; 0 ~ 0 00 <0 ... o...'K . It) It) ~ ~ ~ '" c .... It) '" '" 0 ¡¡; 'J!! Ò ...: Ñ N' :ß "'" -~N N" """ "'~~ ~ 0> ~ '" '" '" ~ , ~ .... c tio:¡; c: g¡8~ 88 ~ ~ g,c::¡,g 'to':!- 0<:> ':!- i:J ~Q;~.i!! """'" oJoJ c:>.!!!. « ...~ a. .. "'.. '" '" '" e ""'...,, "'" "0. 1ô :§Q: a. ... ... ..... ... <; ~èS ~ ~ c 0 ~ 0. .2 ....1....1 ....I !! 0 « « «- õ b b b ~ .. I- I- I- .. g: ~ ~~ :;; ~ ... 1) IJ ~ IJ en - ~ ¡¡¡ E ~ o~ 0 ~ ¡¡; ¡¡¡ ~_õ2-~õ2 ~ oJ >:!ò ~~O¡!!EO ~ 0 '" w = (J)oõ2::>"õ2.1;- ~ ~ ~.!! ,,~0..~2~ <t ~ U I-.t: .go: «Il.o " - zl- :J.t: ¡::.t:z ~ ~ W i:J '" Il. Z Il. " - 0" IJ°~ w~ ëi ,,; z '0 I- :;.5 1-.5 E ~ ::ô: o«~ O~ 0 ¡; 0 W >-1-- !!o u ~ t-;'.. Ó ~ Q ~ !j;tí Œ~~ õ2~ I en .!!!, > ~ NON .0 0 .. e 1-(:)0 õ20 Qj 00.. õ2(:)0: 0,.0: > z Q z ., ::> '" 0 " ~ 0.. Z ., a: « I- Z w :æ: " I'- 0 J: !:! '" ~ U ¡¡ '" 00' « '" '" I'- I- '" ~ cry I- ~ ~ « :¡; ~ 'C 'C ~ ~ ~ u. ~ ~ ... u. u. ~ CJ) CJ) Ë .s-" " 00 00 ~ ~ ~ u 0 0 .E I I )( 'C 'C " 0 0 I- ::;:::;: C: ~ ~ ~ .::.:: 0 cry cry CD CD I'- to '" '" - I'- ~ '" '" " ' " , u ~ '" CD CD ~ <t '" I'- I'- " <n- 1'-" " U <n- <n- O 0 0 a; ~ C 1'-00" 0" ¡g~5 ;;;,~~.~ ~ <t "'" """OO~ ~ ~ 'Q; '" I'- ~ ~ r-: a: <n- "': : ';í ¡¡, "1: I:: C ceo", "0) 0) ~c:\~.g 88~~ ~~g¡::: ,,"'u.!!! ,<>'",'oòoò è-"";": "'Õi'~~ '" "0 0:>-0) 0 ~.!ò~e ""t 0:>0:> '1 CJ)'~ "- .... ... ""..." .~ 0 ~ ... 0 ü .... -" -""" .... c - <0: ~ ~ <0: <0: 0 0 I- ~~I- I- .¡:¡ ::¡ ::" ":: :: .~ :¡ ~ ~ § § ~ '" :¡ ~ :!,!a:.'" II", g¡ 'C § ~ g ~ 'E ~ -]] ~ c .~ '-.c "",0- "'00- Z 'C ~;;; <Ë~~~ ~::;:::;:~ ~ § õi ~.!! '8Ë=æ U~~æ : ~ ~ ffi¡:: ::;:~~ ~~~z .~ ¡ c.. cti 8.!!(/) I-~...c ~ ¡¡ - C.!!!. -:.ca: ¡¡¡a¡a¡z ::- ê. U ::;2 ",-goo 1-;:;: 0 i!i ~o.. t;....::;:a: ~(/)(/) t: -: c w - -- 0 ~ .... .., >- 0. j ," ~ I- U ~ "'ti o..<t"'<t ¡¡:tOtO - g¡.!!!. >-~~N Q""" ]j ~ ..2 I-(!)OO a:00 00 :¡¡ 00.. ¡¡:(!) a: a: 0, a: a: a¡ ~ z Q z (/) 0 .2 ~ if ~ . ( > ( "C ( a: « I- 2: w :!: J: 0 '" - en «> '" U -t "'" en M M « õi M. "'- "? "! "? "! I- g g en;¡; ~ ~;;; I- "'" ~ «>" M « U '" '" '" - .. - - 11 ~ g 0 ~ 0 ~ EJ! ~- ~. : : E.. M M M 00 N N N " '" .. '" &! I-- - OOOMNOO!'" MOo)O~- "'«>1 0 OOO~"OO """0"'"""""" '" NOOO"'OO "OO"MN "'" M .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - " -t-t0«>-~'" NOO",~ O~ '" g "'MIt)NN"'N :;¡:::N~;¡! q :.. """ """ ;; c '6 c ~ ~ C ~ .. .. E ,O!; -g 'C ::¡ õí ~ § E 5 c 'C~ ~.. .c ~ §,; ~ ~ .S ;;: 'C~&!c~§~ ,Æc1! c Cc ¡¡ §,fg.:gg.~Ê :¡¡~:g:g:g 11 ': 0> U -' õi 'E 'w .. .ê 'C -' -' -' >" "c~'C>"re .""'-C'C 'C'C a: § .,:q§¿¡.8,,- ';;~I.n §§-t « 0 :::;~ðJ'::'C~8 oLÍi.,':: '::~;;;: :!: ¡¡ g>~-".;;oiijOJ> ':c:¡¡¡.;;o .;;o"§;:j '" :!: re :g:3§~~¡:E ~,*iij~ d- ~ ~S.=ü:~:::;.;;o .i~.=ü: ü:c¡", I-- - 'C It) - -t 0 " " c '" It) ~ '" -t en ..." N M M " 0 E.=": ..: N-"¡":"': Eß en 0 N - ~ N 0.. -t -t ~ 0 -t -t " II: -- £ '" .. .. ;; - - "I; § «> ~:ri ~ ~ :;; [¡1t:i¡~ ;::- â â:: ~ ~'~~ 8 ~ ~ ~ g ~.,g :~ II; & N- ai :i ..: 'i..g- 0<1;'" .. '" ..i;j c: '-- - ~ 0 ... ... 0> .~ g ;:!;:! o§ ~ Uæ 'C E ~ E2 '" .. '" ~ - a.ij ~ ~ ';: ¡¡¡ ~'C ~ ¡ !!: ~ ~ E ~~[ ~ U E -¡¡; c3 ~O> ~ '" 0 > -'c.E '" .::: > ~ q: '!!j t :;; ¡¡;- ß 0 00 0 - OJ 0 f- reI ¡¡. - iì Ë '" «>" '" .;: G; ~ f- en en en en ;; '" '" "en en en en 1;; æ :¡; .~ § § § § æ ~ i 0.. L1. L1. L1. L1. (fJ g, .!a - '-..- ~ Q) - ." ~ ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ a: ~ RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 1) APPROVING LOANS FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE FINE ART FUND 991 TO THE BAYFRONT/ TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,013, TO THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,380, AND TO TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,758, TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS AND 2) APPRO. PRIATING $150,786 FROM THE ANTICIPATED PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE FULLER FORD SITE TO CIP PROJECT RD133 TO REPLACE PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency budget is constrained and projected tax increment revenues will be needed to fund Redevelopment Agency's operations and obligations; WHEREAS, Redevelopment Agency's Capital Improvement Program has been reviewed and the Redevelopment Agency as a source of funding has been evaluated; WHEREAS, as a result of said evaluation, all Agency CIP projects were prioritized and all projects not deemed as priority were recommended to be cancelled or deferred unless non.impacting funding sources are available for non.priority project funding; WHEREAS, there is no other viable source of funding for certain priority Redevelopment projects. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1) Loans are hereby approved from the unappropriated fund balance of the Fine Art Fund 991 to the Bayfront/Centre I Redevelopment Fund in the amount of $26,013, to the Otay Valley Road Fund in the amount of $8,380, and to Town Centre II Redevelopment Agency Fund in the of $10,758, to replace previously appropriated Redevelopment Agency funds; such loans to be repaid, with interest, upon demand in accordance with the spending needs of the Fine Arts Fund. 2) $150,786 of unanticipated funds from the anticipated proceeds of the sale of the Fuller Ford site is hereby appropriated to CIP Project RD133 to replace previously appropriated Redevelopment Agency funds. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ~ ~ ç'~~ Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and Community Development Director M :lsharedlattorneyI95rdarso. rev This page blank. ..:J - ;¿ ¡, JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ 1-6 :2./f..)<1lo Meeting Date 81/Z31!!6 ITEM TITLE: REPORT: FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCR~E ~ ~ II/f,! / /~/C¡(", J RESOLUTION Establishing the Funding Level from Redevelopment Tax Increment Revenue at 31.63 Percent for the City's Economic Development Program for Fiscal Year 1995.96, and Establishing a Retroactive Funding Level from Redevelop. ment Tax Increment Revenue at 38.53 Percent for Fiscal Years 1989.90 Through 1994.95 SUBMITTED BV, Comm"o;", D(m'", D;,,""{ <7 . REVIEWED BY: City Manager .' (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No....1L) ) Council Referral Number: - BACKGROUND: As part of the 1994-95 Mid-Year Budget Report, staff identified a necessary task of re.evaluating the appropriate level of funding for the City's Economic Development Program from Redevelopment Agency tax increment revenue. This re-evaluation was necessary in light of the passage of "AB 1290" (Health and Safety Code Section 33490, effective on January 1, 1994) which strengthened and clarified existing law relative to establishing a nexus between "extra. territorial" spending of tax increment revenue and the elimination of blight within the respective project areas. Additionally the law required, for the first time, "Project Area Implementation Plans" to be adopted every five years in order to demonstrate and document the nexus between redevelopment project area expenditures and the elimination of blight within the respective project areas. The Redevelopment Agency has been reimbursing the City's General Fund for 85% of the cost for the Economic Development program from FY 1991.92 through FY 1994-95. Immediately prior to that, the reimbursement was set at 75% and earlier it was set at 50%. However, in the current budget year the amount of reimbursement was set at 65% until the results of a more in.depth re.evaluation could be completed. This report presents the results of that analysis. (Please refer to Attachment 3 for a complete listing of the current Economic Development activities) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board accept the report and adopt the resolution to make the appropriate budgetary and financial adjustments as follows: Current Year 1. For budgetary purposes, establish the funding level from redevelopment tax increment revenue at 31.63% (down from 65%) thereby resulting in an Agency budgetary reduction of $214,447 (see Attachment 4). ,if -I Page 2, Item 4t>v-t~ Meeting Date Q1:2~IQø :lJt.IC\ to Retroactive Years - FY 1989-90 throuqh FY 1994-95 2. Establish a retroactive funding level from redevelopment tax increment revenue at 38.53% (down from 75% and 85%) thereby resulting in an Agency "credit" toward the retirement of long-term debt owed to the General Fund in the amount of $1,162,278 (see Attachment 5), Included at the end of the Fiscal Impact section is an explanation for each of the five spreadsheet attachments which form the "back up" to the recommended funding percentages and financial adjustments. It should also be noted that the retroactive reimbursement could be adjusted upward in the future in the event additional data is obtained which suggests that the proposed retroactive factor is too low. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: As a result of the Agency budget adoption for the 1995.96 fiscal year, staff was directed to return with a report analyzing the City's Economic Development activities and identifying those activities that can be funded by redevelopment monies. Additionally, Council directed that the same analysis be applied to prior year expenditures and provide any recommended financial adjustments. Given that direction, the City Attorney issued a legal opinion dated July 14, 1995, which addressed the overall question of the lawfulness to spend tax increment funds generated from within a specific project area on activities that are not primarily focused or specifically directed toward individual project areas. A copy of his report is attached to the City Attorney's Risk Analysis memorandum delivered concurrently herewith. His previous memorandum included the first legislative definition of "blight" that was also a product of the AB 1290 reforms. In summary, the City Attorney indicated that the California Community Redevelopment Law establishes a direct requirement that any "extra.territorial" spending has to be specifically directed toward the elimination of blight within the project area generating the tax increment. Additionally, tax increment funds may be spent outside of a project area as long as the extra. territorial expenditure is necessary in order to remove blight or a blighting influence within the project area. RedeveloDment Proiect Area ImDlementation Plans Pursuant to the passage of AB 1290 all California Community Redevelopment Agencies were required to adopt Implementation Plans for each redevelopment project area in order to document the nexus between Agency expenditures and the elimination of blight within the project areas. The plans provide: 1) Goals and objectives; 2) Planned projects and expenditures; 3) Explanation of the nexus between Agency activities and the elimination of blight; and 4) Explanation of the nexus between Agency activities and meeting State housing requirements for the five year period from January 1995 through December 1999. The law requires that each plan be updated (and progress reported which documents the elimination of blight) between years 2 and 3, or by December 31, 1997. 1---V- ¡{l>\~[p Page 3, Item- Meeting Date Q1/23/Q6 :2../l..hfc:,. The Agency Board reviewed and adopted each of the respective project area Implementation Plans on December 13, 1994. It needs to be noted that none of the current Economic Development activities were included in any of the Implementation Plans because of the uncertainty, at that time, in establishing the nexus between those expenditures and the elimination of blight within the project areas, Therefore, it is advisable that each Implementation Plan be amended to include the justified Economic Development activities during the "update" period sometime in 1997. Nexus Findinlls The City's Economic Development Program has been geared toward a City-wide and regional effort to promote Chura Vista as a balanced, well.planned, and pro.business community worthy of continued private investment. Obviously, the focused goal of the program is to retain and attract businesses and jobs to the community in order to help sustain and expand the economic base of the City, and therefore, avoid the continuation of blighting influences that already exist in the City. These efforts therefore derive benefits to the City as a whole, which include the redevelopment project areas. Additionally, within the last two years or so, there has also been a concerted and focused effort on specific high.profile programs and projects (High.Tech/BioTech Zone and BECA) that differ from the more general outreach and retention activities from prior years. Given the general description of the nature and scope of the City's Economic Development Program as provided above, staff believes that it is not necessary to go through each individual activity to determine the individual nexus between that activity and the elimination of blight within each individual project area. To undertake that level of detailed analysis for each economic development activity and for each redevelopment project area would be a very large administrative burden, which, to remain valid, would have to be undertaken on an annual basis. It would not be practical to undertake that burdensome and repetitive task. Instead, staff believes that an appropriate nexus can be based on the principle that the Economic Development activities have a realistic expectation of continuing to bring business, industry, and jobs to the community, and therefore, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that these activities will also derive positive benefits toward the goal of eliminating blight within the project areas. This conclusion is based upon the clarification of what constitutes "blight" under the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRLI. AB 1290, among other things, organized blight factors into two distinct categories; physical and economic. (Please refer to the City Attorney's July 14,1995 memorandum for a listing of the specific conditions that cause blight) Although arguments could be made that some of the Economic Development activities could help eliminate physical blight, a much stronger and more direct case can be made that the activities have, as their primary purpose, the elimination of economic blight, that again, have a realistic expectation to derive benefits to the redevelopment areas as they do to the City as a whole. 1-3 Page 4, Item ~ o..:.c\,-'~ Meeting Date Q1/23:~6 ' :2/r../~ I,.. Fundinq Option #1 (Recommended) Gross Industrial and Commercial Land.Use Acreage Staff therefore, proposes to simply apply a gross land-use acreage "pro-rata" share funding criteria in order to make the nexus as succinct and simple as possible. That is, staff is recommending that the funding level be based upon the amount of commercial and industrial acreage within the redevelopment project areas as a percentage of the total commercial and industrial acreage in the City as a whole, The argument is that the Economic Development activities are expected to derive tangible benefits to the entire City in the forms of retaining existing businesses, and bringing new business and industry to the community that will help eliminate economic blight. Those benefits then, would or should derive an equal or "pro.rata" share of benefit to commercial and industrial properties located within redevelopment project areas. As a note, only the commercial and industrially zoned acreage (including the "planned community" designations) is being recommended to be used since the current Economic Development activities would only have a direct benefit to those types of properties, whether developed or not. To the extent that a specific activity applies to only an industrial use, then that individual activity "share" is based on the pro-rata percentage of industrial properties only etc.,. To the extent particular activities have a specific focus on a specific geographical area (i.e., High.Tech/BioTech in Eastlake) then the activity would be funded 100% by the General Fund (for a non-RDA area) or by the Agency if the activity is specific to the project areas only. Fundinq Option #2 Net Industrial and Commercial Land.Use Acreage During the course of arriving at this simplified "pro.rata" share funding criteria recommendation, legitimate concerns and issues were raised internally with respect to whether to include the acreage of certain types of properties within the overall "pro.rata" share calculation. After several meetings, it became apparent that legitimate arguments could be made on both sides (RDA or non.RDA) concerning whether to include or not include certain types of properties, whether developed or not. However, it was recognized that this type of specific property by property or area by area analysis would be extremely subjective and speculative. As an example, concerns were raised about the inclusion of property not yet necessarily available for development in the eastern portion of the City, as well as concerns about general activities that would not be reasonably expected to derive benefits to fully built.out, non. blighted commercial and industrial areas. Although these concerns are legitimate, they really apply to both sides of the equation. That is, significant large portions of redevelopment area properties are also included which are either being reserved/held for a particular development (Mid-Bayfront, SDG&E and portions of properties to the east of the Auto Park, to name a few) as well as properties that have recently been redeveloped such as the Chula Vista Center, South Bay Marketplace, and the Palomar Trolley Center. Therefore although the concerns are legitimate, that approach is not being recommended since it will require a tremendous amount of staff time initially and annually (see "Monitorinq" below) with no real sense that there will q-i Page 5, Item ~ ð-- ~ \> Meeting Date .01/23/96- ;J..lt..ftt(., be a materially different result since there will be deletions from the applicable land acreage from both non-RDA and RDA areas. Proqram Adiustments Additionally, in order to establish even more of a reasonable nexus and be further protected from any legal challenge pursuant to the intent and spirit of the law (as an additional adjustment above the "pro.rata" share percentage), the specific Economic Development program activities could allow for a smaller "program within the larger program" to be established specifically for the redevelopment project areas. As an example, the City.wide marketing efforts should include a component which directly markets the redevelopment areas; and any business loan and/or assistance programs should include a specific component that "tailors" a portion of the program toward the specific needs of the project areas. Staff is not suggesting that Economic Development staff needs to embark upon an administrative exercise of separate program management and/or compliance reporting as is necessary for funding from federal funds like CDBG. To the contrary, it is suggested that staff merely document in the program materials that there is a network or framework of tangible program resources in place that would be marketed and made available for businesses located within the project area, and specifically tailored for their needs where possible. Economic Development staff is currently evaluating to what extent that these "programs within programs" can be established and will ensure that to the extent they can, this practice will be implemented. Project Accountina Adiustments During the course of evaluating the specific Economic Development activities, it was found that three of the current year activities can and should be paid from the City's CDBG Administrative and Planning account. The three activities are: 1) Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, 2) Micro.Enterprise Loan Program, and 3) the Community Reinvestment Act Task Force activities. Historically, the City has not spent near the capacity allowed for under the CDBG program guidelines for administrative and planning staff costs. This fact, coupled with the expectation that CDBG funds will be recommended to be used to "seed" these programs, makes it an appropriate recommendation that the staff costs associated with planning, developing and implementing these programs should be absorbed by CDBG funds. Since CDBG is a separate program, the staff time costs will be accounted for separately from the other activities. The Finance Department is also recommending that the BECA and High-Tech/BioTech program staff costs be accounted for separately as well. This is because they, as previously explained, differ from the more general activities by having a specific focus and also represent significant portions of the projected staff time for the current year. As you are aware, the BECA program is geared toward environmentally friendly businesses and technologies which, as its' currently defined, is geared toward an industrial land.use benefit only. The High.Tech/BioTech Zone is solely and specifically designed to benefit businesses in the Eastlake area and therefore has no blight elimination nexus to the redevelopment project areas. (Please refer to Table 2 of Attachment 2 for a breakdown of how the activities will be accounted.) +-5 Page 6, Item~<\P Meeting Date 91/23/96 ;1./"/'10 Monitorinq Two forms of periodic evaluation are recommended to assure that the methodology that is adopted provides an appropriate measure of the economic development/project area blight elimination nexus. The first evaluation would be part of the annual City and Agency budget process. The planned activities will be evaluated in terms of their focus (City-wide, RDA only, City-area only, etc.) and the land use acreage analysis will be updated (to account for any zoning changes etc.) to then determine the appropriate percentages of funding sources. Note: since it is planned for the cost apportionment to be evaluated annually, the "net acreage" approach (Option #2) would not only be a staff obligation for this year, but also for future years as well. The second evaluation, which is consistent with the recommendation in the Attorney's memorandum, will be a monitoring of the tangible results of the economic development funding in the project areas. This analysis will occur as part of the already. required Implementation Plan process set up by AB 1290 and discussed above ("Redevelopment Proiect Area Implementation Plans"). As stated above, the Implementation Plans for each project area will be revised to include the economic development activities. The Implementation Plan process requires that those five.year plans be updated and progress evaluated mid-plan (second to third year). The already-required progress evaluation will constitute a monitoring of the tangible results in the project areas of economic development activities without creating a new administrative burden and will give us clear feedback on the efficacy of using those funds. Consequences Because Redevelopment Law is not specific regarding the mechanisms for demonstrating a nexus of economic development activities with project area blight elimination, and because there is very little case law on the topic, it should be recognized that the recommended methodology for determining a nexus is not definitive and may be subject to adjustment, either by Council discretionary action or by legal requirements once such requirements become more defined. Staff and the Attorney (as indicated in his accompanying memorandum), however, feel that there is little likelihood of legal challenge, given the lack of identifiable opponent constituencies or "watchdog" entities opposed to economic development funding by redevelopment agencies. As has been noted above in reference to retroactive adjustments recommended at this time, the consequences of any future adjustments applied retroactively really constitute "paper" transactions, not potential short.term cash flow impacts on the General Fund. If the City were required by an unfavorable legal decision invalidating the recommended methodology to retroactively assume a larger portion of the economic development funding from General Fund and other sources, the adjustment would be in the form of a credit against long.term Agency debt owed to the General Fund. That debt credit would be quite small in relation to the total debt owed to the General Fund by the Agency as a result of booking the General Fund participation in the COPs payments as loans to the Agency. The servicing of that debt to the General Fund by the Agency will only be realistic as the project areas complete the redevelopment process a significant number of years in the future. The Agency is able to collect tax increment for up to ten years after the expiration of a project area for the sole purpose of repaying debt obligations. 4-Þ Page 7, Item ~o-:.d<k Meeting Date Q1i23i96 .:ll (,..h"- FISCAL IMPACT: Provided at the end of this Fiscal Impact section is an explanation. for each of the five spreadsheet attachments that were used to arrive at the impacts listed below. FY 1995.96 As indicated in Attachment 4, for the current year the Redevelopment Agency share (65%) of the Economic Development Program staff costs totals $417,712. Given the recommended adjustment down to 31.63% (factor arrived at from Attachment 3), the Agency's budget obligations should be reduced by $214,447 to a total of $203,265. Therefore, with respect to the General Fund, the fiscal impact will be that the General Fund (or a combination of the General Fund/CDBG or other funds) will be required to pick up the additional $214,447. However, another option for the Agency to consider is the "phasing in" of this adjustment over a two year period. That is, make the adjustment to 50% for the current year, with the expectation that the next phase reduction down to 31.63% next fiscal year. This would be with the requirement that the Agency would be "credited" (reduction of long.term debt to the General Fund) for the amount of overpayment that they would carry this year, plus interest. If this phased approach is accepted, the result would be that the Agency's obligation would be reduced by only $96,395 to a total of $321,317. The Agency would be "credited" in the amount of $118,052. Prior Years If the staff recommendation is accepted the Agency is entitled to a "reimbursement" of $1,162,278 (not including interest) for the years of FY 89.90 through FY 94.95 as provided in Attachment 5. However, the Agency also owes the General Fund (as of July 1, 1995), a total amount of $2,188,415 (not including any General Fund contributions as required by the financial structure of the Bayfront/Town Centre I and Town Centre II Certificates of Participation [COPs]). The vast majority of that non.COPS related debt is owed by Otay Valley Road; therefore, the recommendation is, in essence, to reduce the debt owed by Otay Valley Road to the General Fund and shift it so that Otay Valley Road will owe to Bayfront/Town Centre I. The "Adjustments" column in Table 2 of Attachment 5 is the basis for the individual adjustments outlined below which were arrived at by allocating each individual project area's pro.rata share of the RDA share. The project area adjustments are as follows: 1. Record a loan from the General Fund to Southwest in the amount of $229,353. 2. Retire long-term debt owed by Otay Valley Road (OVR) to the General Fund paid on behalf of Otay Valley by Town Centre I (TC I) in the amount of $415,476. Result is "shifting" debt that currently is owed by OVR to the General Fund, and shifting it so that OVR will owe it to Bayfront/TC I. 3. Retire long.term debt owed by OVR to the General Fund as paid on behalf of OVR by Bayfront in the amount of $818,912. Result is the same "shifting" as described above. 4-7 ~ ! I Page 8, Item 1Ov , M.";,, D". "H2iisO k.' '; . -:2 191, 4. Retirement of long-term debt from Town Centre 1/ to the General Fund in the amount of $117,808. 5. Retirement of long-term debt from OVR to the General Fund in the amount of $39,434. . Concerns About Retroactive Adjustment However, during the course of this lengthy analysis, there were concerns raised about the historical project staff cost accounting practices for those non-Community Development employees that worked on what were labeled as "Economic Development" projects. There are concerns that while working on such redevelopment projects as the Bayfront, Chula Vista Center expansion, and the Auto Park during those years, that some staff time was actually charged to the "Economic Development" activity. In the event that this practice was widespread, the overall effect could be that the amount of actual retroactive reimbursement due to the Agency would be reduced. Therefore, in the event that staff is able to recover ðãtél-rròfifprior ye.ars-that.suggests that the retroactive reimbursement -adjustment is too - much, then staff would bring back a recommendation for an appropriate adjustment. Another important aspect to the question of whether or not to apply the reduced factor retroactively, is the overall interpretation of the impact of AB 1290. That is, if one interprets AB 1290 as being a landmark legislative event that explicitly required (for the first time) that RDA tax increment expenditures be linked to the elimination of blight within the project areas, then the argument would be made that the retroactivity should only apply back to January 1, 1994 (effective date of legislation). However if on the other hand, one interprets that AB 1290 merely clarified an already existinq requirement about linking expenditures to blight elimination, then the argument would be made that the requirement was always there and that only the perceived abuses by redevelopment agencies over the years forced the State legislature to clarify the language and provide specific factors of what .constitutes blight under the CRl. Therefore, with the requirement always there, then the retroactive factor should go all the way back to 1989-90 which was the first year that significant expenditures occurred. It is therefore, staff's recommendation to use the most conservative approach and apply the retroactive factor all the way back to 1989.90. Since the retroactive adjustment is really merely a "paper" adjustment with no current year financial ramifications, it seems to make the most sense to go ahead and apply a stricter interpretation. Also, in comparison to the amount of long.term debt that will be owed by the Agency to the General Fund as a result of booking the required General Fund participation for the debt service on the Town Centre" Certificates of Participation as loans to the Agency, this retroactive credit is really quite a minimal amount. Explanation of Attachments Provided below is an explanation for each of the five attachments to this report. In summary however, the analysis poncludedth~t the appropriate amount of RDA funding for the City's current year "general" Economic Development Program activities (EDOO1) is 38.53%, with 4-c? Page 9, ltem--.1:.o-..:~ \.. Meeting Date....a1/23f~6 :11l.ø['f (0 the Agency also responsible for 46.4% of the BECA activity costs. The General Fund, with some other funds, then would be responsible for 61.47% of the "general" activities (EDO01). 53.6% of the BECA activities, and 100% of the High-Tech/BioTech costs. Again, as explained above, CDBG would then pick up 100% of the staff costs associated with the Section 108, Micro Enterprise, and CRA programs (see Table 2 of Attachment 2). The net effect is that the Agency tax increment will fund 31.63% of the costs (see Attachment 3), Attachment 1 includes two tables: Table 1) provides the RDA industrial and commercial acreage as a percentage of the City's commercial and industrial acreage as a whole; and Table 2) provides the amount of RDA industrial and commercial acreage within each project area. The tables indicate that 21.05% of commercial acreage and 46.4% of the industrial acreage is located within a redevelopment project area, with a corresponding "combined" percentage of 35.78%. Additionally in Table 2, staff is recommending that the adjusted RDA "share" of the Economic Development Program costs be split as follows: Bayfront 22.61 %, Town Centre I 4.75%, Town Centre II 6.35%, Otay Valley Road 25.3%, and Southwest 41 %. Again, on the basis of the percentage of industrial and commercial acreage within the respective project areas. Attachment 2 also includes two tables. Table 1) provides a listing of Q!J.)y those activities that will be accounted for under the "general" Economic Development activity account (EDO01). Table 2) then shows the recommended breakdown of how each accounting component of the Economic Development activities will be funded as discussed in the "Project Accounting" section. It is recommended that for any retroactive adjustment, the "general" activity cost apportionment (38.53%) be applied. Attachment 3 is a spreadsheet which applies the redevelopment land use factors identified in Attachment 1, to each of the current year Economic Development activities as expressed by the estimated aggregate percentage of staff time to be spent on those activities. Application of this "pro.rata" share funding criteria, results in an overall recommended funding level, for budgetary purposes, of 31.63% from Redevelopment with 68.37% remaining to be paid from the General Fund and CDBG (about 7%). It's noteworthy that the only activity deemed not to have some "pro.rata" share benefit/nexus, is the activity associated with the High-Tech/BioTech Zone. Attachment 4 provides the amount of current year budget adjustment shift recommended from Redevelopment funding to the General Fund and CDBG associated with the recommended reduction in Redevelopment reimbursement from 65% to 31.63%. This reduction would result in a total current year budgetary shift of $ 214,447. However, it is also noteworthy to see that Southwest and Otay Valley will actually have a budgetary increase because of the change in the recommended percentage splits for each of the project areas. Attachment 5 includes two tables which calculates the amount of financial adjustment necessary to be made based upon a retroactive adjustment from the historical spending of 85% (and when applicable, 75%) to the recommended level of 38.53% for the years of 1989. 90 through 1994.95. Table 2 then arrives at how the overpayment should be spread back to each of the project areas under the corrected project area percentage splits calculated in Attachment 1, Table 2. In other words, Table 1 documents the amount of overpayment by the Agency and Table 2, then, determines the amount that the Agency should have been ~- c¡ 4 ~\p Page 10, Item~ Meeting Date 91/2a/96 ;1../ (., 111.. reimbursing by project area at the 38.53'% rate (given the updated percentage splits) and the corresponding amount, by project area, that is to be reimbursed to the Agency. The total retroactive "reimbursement" is $1,162,278, however, the majority of the reimbursement would go to Bayfront ($818,912), Conversely, Southwest should have been paying more along the way and therefore an additional long-term debt of $229,353 should be recorded to Southwest. Conclusion In these difficult financial times, it is recommended that the most prudent way to take care of this retroactive adjustment is to merely write off debt owed to the General Fund. Recognizing that a significant portion of the $1.1 6 million adjustment is merely shifting the debt from being owed to the General Fund to being owned to Bayfront/TCI, it is also recognized that Otay Valley also has the ability to repay Bayfront/TCI since Otay Valley does not have bonded indebtedness to which future tax increment is pledged. m"_"'~"'M~""~"""'",,",,'" ~-IV 'tI os ~"" "" "" "" "" "" M œœ- M~~OOO 'tI~.: ....\0.......,..,00 f-< .: ..: 0 U""" Z œ ... œN"'\O~MO ~ ~~~",,~N N"'~ 1ii OœUM~ U U'n a os ~ ~ œ OM"" f-< 0: ~ M a ~ -~":E-<,Q ..; ~ ~~ ..;~~~~~~ os OS""'N""'oo~\O .... ..... "1M ""...r-~ooNM g ~ ~~ gM M\O~ .... os ~ ... ~~ ~ ;:: ;:: ;:: ~ OQ)È! ..;....\OO\O~OO U~Q) ~ ~~ ~~~OOM"'O .: U ~ \ON ~. N "1"'0 ~nJl'J 00 "I'" ¡¡:8 M "'U r- ~\O ,,'" Q) 0 'tI "'f-<,Q .'1,Q ~ ..; ..; ~ ~O .~NO"'\OooN ã ~ ~~ ..,~ ~~~~ ~ \ou) ¡¡:M r-oooo~ U :;: ~~ .g~ ~~~ ... M M N .: U H ""OS>' ...~~~~~~~ OQ)~ ..;U~N\OO\OO ~ "" "" "" . ~ ""..:1 ~ 000 ~~N~MO"'O ~ ~..;"" ~........ ~ ~~NMN M~ ~ E~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~g£ ¡J Õ ~ ~ U,Q ~~ ~ ";\OooNOM\O f-< ..; \0 0\0 H OSNr-M "1M ¡g ã "I N~ ~ '<1..;~.,; MOO ~ 00 ~~ ¡g ~oo.....oo r- H :3::; ~~ ~ ¡¡ "I - S 0: H 0 ~ ~ U . S ~ :¡¡ ~ ~ ~ 'tI ~ H nJ..:¡~ H~ - ~ t::if-< HHO: ~ ~ f-< UU Q)G»' = ~ ~'" nJ nJ'O fH3 tt~u ] M 8 ~~.<1 .~~ N ~¡¡¡ 'i1ffiffinJ~..; [ ~ .~D ~ ¡¡:... ~ 8'" 8uu:>~2 ;1 II :!! ..:¡ ~ ";'0 ¡:; ".¡j ..:¡ >< ....~~>.uo T'" g ~ ~ ~~ Õ ~8 ~ ~~ ~002gf-< g f-<f-< ~":¡UH f-<iiJ ~f-<f-<OUJ ¡¡ ATTACHMENT 2 TAHLE 1 HDOOI - GENERAL ED RDA FUNDING SHARE WEIGaTED AGENCY TOTAL TARGETED/ TARGETED \ STAFF LAND-USE PERCENTAGE PROGRAM ACTIVITY /PHASE BENEFIT AREA LAND-USE ACTIVITY FACTOR RDA SHARE Economic Dev. Comm. Priority Projects City-wide Indust/Comm 15.52% 35.78\ 5.55% Recycling Ma.rket App. to State Rd. Regional Industrial 6.9" 46.4.0' 3.20' Development Zone Workforce Dev. Team Priority Projects - Regional Industrial 5.t 7% 45.40\ 2.40\ Strengths/Weaknesses Business Retention/ Program Development City-wide Industrial 3.45% 46.40\ 1. 60\ Expansion Program Business rnquiry Response On-going City-wide Indust/Comm 13.79\ 35.78\ 4.94% and Prospect Assistance Liaison to Other Regional On-going City-wide Indust/Comm 5.17% 35.78\ 1.85% Econ. Dev. Agencies Trade shows On-going City-wide Industrial 10.34% 46.40\ 4.80\ ------ --- Advertising On-going City-wide Indust/Comm t2.07% 35.78\ 4.32% Special Events On-going City-wide Indust/comm 5.17% 35.78\ 1.85% Collateral Materials On-going City-wide Indust/Comm 10.34% 35.78\ 3.70\ Speaking Engagements On-going City-wide rndust/Comm 1.72% 35.78\ 0.52% Press Release/Media Rei on-going City-wide Indust/Comm 6.90\ 35.78\ 2.47% Business Attraction/ In production City-wide Indust/Comm 3.45% 35.78\ 1.23% TABLE 2 (Retroactive Factor 100.00\ 38.53% Economic Development Activities Aggregrate Percentages of Funding Sources Activity Sources, Percentages, BECA RDA 45.40\ General Fund 53.60\ Hi-Tech / Bio-Tech General Fund 100.00\ Section t08 Loan Program CDBG 100.00\ Micro Enterprise Loan Program CDBG 100.00\ community Reinvestment Act CDBG 100.00\ HDOOI - General ED RDA 38.53% General Fund 61.47% ,,\qp""'-""""""".""fJ.wql 1-- I ?- FISCAL YEAR 1995-9' ATTACHMENT 3 COMBINED LIST OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND NET ROA FUNDING LEVEL (AxB) (A) (B) (D) AGENCY TOTAL TARGETEDI TARGETED 0 STAFF LAND-USE PERCENTAGE PROGRAM ACTIVITY IPHASE BENEFIT AREA LAND-USE ACTIVrTY FACTOR aDA SHARE BECA Program Development Regional! Industrial 20% 46.400 9.280 International High-Techl Program Implementation EasUake Industrial '" 0.000 0.000 Bio-Tach Zona (City-only) Section 1081 Consultant Contract City-wide Industrial 5% 0.000 0.000 Loan Guarantae Project (CDBG paid) Micro Entarprise Loan Program Developmentl Regionall Industrial 3% 0.000 0.000 Implementation City.wide (CDBG Paid) Community Reinvastment Local rmplementation City-wide Indust/Comm " 0.000 0.000 Task Force Bank Relations (CDBG Paid) Economic Dev. Comm. Priority Projects City-wide Indust/Comm go 35.780 3.2" Recycling Markat App. to State Bd. Regional Industrial .. 4'.400 1. 8'0 Davalopmant Zona Workforce Dav. Team priority Projects - Regional Industrial 3% 46.400 1.390 Strengths IWeaknesses Businass Retantionl Program Davelopment City.wida Industrial " 4'.400 0.93% Expansion Program Businass Inquiry Response On-going City-wida Indust/Comm " 35.780 2.." and Pros pact Assistanca Liaison to Other Ragional On-going City-wida Indust/Comm 3% 35.780 1.07% Econ. Dav. Agancies Trade shows On-going City-wida Industrial " 46.400 2.7.0 Advertising On-going City-wide Indust/Comm 7% 35.780 2.500 Special Events On-going City-wida Indust/Comm 3% 35.780 1.07% Collaterol Materials on-going City-wida Indust/Comm " 35.78' 2 .15% Speaking Engagamants On-going ci ty-wida Indust/Comm " 35.78' 0.3" Prass Releasa/Madia Ral on-going City-wida Indust/Comm .. 35.78' 1.43% Businass Attractionl In production City-wide Indust/Comm " 35.78' 0.7" Retention Video Total 100.000 I 31.63%1 RDA Land-Usa Ratio Industrial 46.400 Combinad 35.7.0 "'"pro""-"""""""",,".>,I 1- /3 FY 95-96 RDA BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR ED STAFF COSTS BY PROJECT AREA ATTACHMENT 4 IMPLEMENTING REOUCED RDA I SHARE AND RECOMMENDED RDA SHARE PROJECT AREA I SPLrT ADJUSTMENT Staff Costs OnIy 95-96 ED Budget @ IOOI cost Southwest $66, '88 Town Centre I $129,577 Bayfront $316,411 Town Centre II $64,908 Otay VaIley $65,451 TOTAL $642,634 (Current RDA Share) 95-96 ED Budget @ 651 cost Southwest $43,087 Town Centre I $84,225 Bayfront $205,667 Town Centre II $42,I90 Otay VaIley $42,543 TOTAL $417,712 (Proposed ROA Share) (Proposed RDA Share) Phased Approach Amount to 95-96 ED Budget @ 3I. 63% cost 95-96 ED Budget @ 501 cost be Credited Southwest (41') $83,339 Southwest (4l1) $131,740 $48,401 Town Centre r (4.751) $9,655 Town Centre I (4.751) $15,263 $5,607 Bay front (22.") $45,938 Bay front (22.") $72,618 $26,680 Town Centre II (6.351) $12,907 Town Centre II (6.351) $20,404 $7,496 Otay VaIley (25.3%) $51,426 Otay VaIley (25.3%) $81,293 $29,867 TOTAL $203,265 TOTAL $321,3I7 $Il8,052 (FY 95-96) Phased Approach ED Staff Cost Savings 95.96 ED Staff Cost Savings Southwest ($40,25') Southwest (411) ($88,653) Town Centre r $74,570 Town Centre I (4.751) $68,962 eayfront $159,729 Bay front (22...) $133,049 Town Centre II $29,283 Town Centre II (6.351) $21,786 Otay VaIley ($8,883) Otay VaIley (25.3%) ($38,750) TOTAL $214,447 TOTAL $96,395 "lqpmlhayn",locondevledfund4. wql Lj -If ~ N ! ¡¡ ð " ~ . - " ~ ~ 0 "~ . ~! 0 m n ~ " "~ . - ~ ~ N ~ . 8 ~ ~ ~ . .. pg - - . d: . . ~ ".." N. ;~-- . ~ð~ - - . " > ~ ~ . ~ .~~_.". ~ ~~ - . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~._--- ~ ¡; ð ~ . ! . u . 0 . N---. . ~ ~ ~ ~ -.- : -i~ - . . ~ ~ . ¡ !~~--.~- ~ ¡¡ I ~ ! ~ ;:;'ON<U ~ 5 ~ ~ é - . '" ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~Iq ~ !: 5 " : = = : "~ ~J; ::::~I: ~. "... '.'0'. .. ~ . t.~~ i;iiii ~~ ~~~ - - u !E:;' ;:;-:'::':'::~ Qi d. HH- ~. ~: : 8; ~ L .~ ~.~ . - -- ~:ó ~~. 0 0 i! .'..'1" ~! . , .. ~ :~~:5~ ~:~ :;:~ :::,= 2 "=:~=== ~t i " . . td u;:i--;:i / JS o. ~ 0 0 ¡ .." !8 ~ - - ~ " ~e :" - - - I ;; . - .~ . . ~ '. r ~~ " o. ~ ~: "~. ON' 'I ¡¡; I : :. E 0 -"0' "P ~ ~I i ~ ~ N~ ~ .:::: [ ~~ i " "> 0 '"0"> ~" :; e" .~. 0 :;'~e'~ ~ ~.. .'5" .. ""5." ; "~~ ~ ~ " . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~"~~ , This page blank. q~/¿ AGENCY RESOLUTION /L/cf7I COUNCIL RESOLUTION / ,F/9 h JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING THE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 31.63 PERCENT FOR THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96, AND ESTABLISHING A RETROACTIVE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 38.53 PERCENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1989-90 THROUGH 1994-95 WHEREAS, as part of the 1994.95 Mid.Year Budget Report, staff identified a necessary task of re.evaluating the appropriate level of funding for the City's Economic Development Program from Redevelopment Agency tax increment revenue; and WHEREAS, this re.evaluation was necessary in light of the passage of AB 1290 (Health and Safety Code Section 33490, effective January 1, 1994) which strengthened and clarified existing law relative to establishing a nexus between "extra.territorial" spending of tax increment revenue and the elimination of blight within the respective project areas; and WHEREAS, AB 1290 required, for the first time, Project Area Implementation Plans to be adopted every five years in order to demonstrate and document the nexus between redevelopment project areas' expenditures and the elimination of blight within the respective project areas; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency is reimbursing the City's General Fund for 65 percent of the cost for the Economic Development program for Fiscal Year 1995.96; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency reimbursed the City's General Fund for 85 percent of the cost for the Economic Development program for Fiscal Year 1991.92 through Fiscal Year 1994.95; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency reimbursed the City's General Fund for 75 percent of the cost for the Economic Development program for Fiscal Year 1989-90. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. To establish the funding level from redevelopment tax increment revenue at 31.63 percent for the current fiscal year (FY95-96). 2. To establish the funding level from redevelopment tax increment revenue, retroactively, at 38.53 percent for Fiscal Year 1989.90 through Fiscal Year 1994-95. 3. To Authorize City and Agency staff to take all necessary and appropriate steps to reduce the Agency's Economic Development.program budget obligation for Fiscal Year 1995.96 to the General Fund by $214,447 to a total of $203,265; 4. To authorize City and Agency staff to take all necessary and appropriate steps to reduce the Agency's Economic Development program budget obligation for Fiscal Year 19B9.90 through Fiscal Year 1994-95 to the General Fund by $1,162,278 (not including interest) by making the below listed five adjustments: If-IT Agency Resolution Council Resolution Page 2 [1 J Record a loan from the General Fund to Southwest in the amount of $229,353. [2J Retire long.term debt owed by Otay Valley Road (OVR) to the General Fund paid on behalf of Otay Valley by Town Centre I (TC I) in the amount of $415,476 (which will result in shifting debt that currently is owed by OVR to the General Fund and shifting it so that OVR will owe it to BayfrontfTC I. [3] Retire long-term debt owed by OVR to the General Fund as paid on behalf of OVR by Bayfront in the amount of $818,912. Result is the same "shifting" as described in [2] above. [4] Retire long-term debt from Town Centre II to the General Fund in the amount of $117,808. [5] Retire long.term debt from OVR to the General Fund in the amount of $39,434. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: & S'~ C?.'~' ~:d7-'-7->~ ~- , Chris Salomone Bruce iV1/Boogáard ./ I ~ Community Development Director Agencý Counsel ---/! IBB:\C:\ WP5 1 IAGENCYIRESOS\ED-FUND. RES] ;.) ,- /g REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT ItemS Meeting Date* ..1 ¿, ~lø ITEM TITLE: Fiscal Year 1995.96 Mid.Year Agency Budget Report J SUBMITTED BY: 0;""°1 of commr""o'm'm C<;, REVIEWED BY: Executive Director (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No-1U Council Referral Number: - BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency Board adopted the Fiscal Year 1995-96 Agency budget on June 27, 1995. As part of the budget approval, staff was directed to return with a Mid.Year Budget Report in order to update the Agency Board on the progress made toward: 1) the goal of restoring the Agency's depleted fund balances, and 2) bringing the on-going Agency operating budget into balance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board review and accept the Fiscal Year 1995.96 Mid.Year Budget Report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: It has been well documented and acknowledged that the Redevelopment Agency has experienced several difficult budget years in succession characterized by declining property values, State "take.aways", and major property reassessments, all primarily fueled by the State's overall economic recession. The result has been that the Agency has not received the tax increment revenue necessary in' order to protect the General Fund from exposure. Staff and the Agency Board have accepted and confronted this reality by embarking upon a three.pronged strategy centered around: 1) selling non.essential assets, 2) prudent budget cuts, and 3) seeking alternative and/or more appropriate funding sources for items and activities (including the Agency CIP) funded by the Redevelopment Agency. The strategy to sell non.essential assets is the intended remedy to restore the Agency's currently negative fund balances, whereas the overall budget cuts and identification of alternative funding sources are being pursued as long.term on.going remedies to balance the Agency's annual budget. As will be discussed in detail later in this report, the result is expected to be that the Agency's general project accounts (non.restricted) will increase from $-3,345,810 to $.399,554. Recent Agency Accomplishments. Development Projects However, before discussing the specific actions taken to implement the overall strategy, it is beneficial to look at these actions in context of recent major Agency accomplishments that will derive significant financial and economic benefits to the City and Agency in terms of sales tax revenue, property tax revenue and job creation. s-/ Page 2, Item 5 Meeting Date 91 :23/9i! ..2./(,.)'1'" a. MCA Amphitheatre. Entitlements and lease agreements approved. b. South Bav Marketplace - Wal.Mart opened. Best Stores to begin construction in early 1996. c. Broadwav Business Homes - Entitlements and Disposition and Development Agreement Approved. d. Palomar Trollev Center. Phase I completed. Phase II to be completed in February 1996. e. Veterans Home. Governor's Commission designated Chula Vista as priority site. Agreement with School District approved for land swap to make an appropriate site available for development of the project, f. HiQh-Tech/Bio-Tech Zone - NYPRO San Diego agreement executed allowing for expansion and relocation of an existing manufacturing busines.s into the zone. g. BECA . Grand Opening and Open House held on November 15, 1995. h. U.S. Postal EncodinQ Center. Opened in October 1995 in the former Allied Signal building in the Bayfront Project Area. Within this background and context, the remainder of the report identifies the progress made toward achieving the stated goals on both the revenue and expenditure side of the Agency's budget, as well as the subsequent effect on the current year budget projections. Included as Attachment 1 is a spreadsheet which updates the Agency's current year fund balance projections. REVENUE Property Sales Crucial to the revenue side of the budget are the proposed non.essential property/asset sales for the purpose of restoring the Agency's negative fund balances. Included as attachments to the June 27 report were budget balance sheets for the 1994-95 and 1995.96 fiscal years which identified the following prospective property sale proceeds totaling $5,126,000: 1) EI Dorado Building ($1,300,000); 2) Fuller Ford ($550,000); 3) South Bay Chevrolet ($1,183,000); 4) RDA share of Marina View Park ($343,000); 5) Cappos ($750,000); 6) Marina Motor Motel ($1,000,000). Listed below is an update for each of the identified property sales. EI Dorado Building As a result of a Joint Public Hearing on September 5, 1995, action was taken to approve the sale of the EI Dorado Building to the City for $1,175,000 utilizing the Development Impact Fee S-J- Page 3, Item 6 (DIF) funds from the Civic Center Expansion Fund. Meeting DateQ1/23:;~)"lqtp As a result of that action, the Agency received revenue of $1,064,550 with the remaining balance of $110,450 applied as debt retirement from Bayfront/Town Centre I to the General Fund. Fuller Ford On July 25, 1995, action was taken to approve the "Broadway Business Homes" project which contemplated the sale of the former Fuller Ford site for $550,000 in two phases of $275,000 each. The Agency is responsible for the remaining demolition costs estimated to be $93,000. Additionally, as part of the re.evaluation of the Agency CIP (presented in a separate report) staff recommended that an additional $79,083 be appropriated from the Fuller Ford sale proceeds for the RD 133 (Auto Park) project which was established for the clean-up, clearance and sale of Agency-owned property for the Broadway Business Homes project. In the event that staff's recommendation is accepted, the net proceeds from the Phase I sale would be reduced to $102,917. Phase 1/ is conservatively expected to be received in the 1996-97 fiscal year. The net proceeds would then be $377,917. South Bay Chevrolet The sale of the former South Bay Chevrolet site to Courtney Tire had been delayed pending resolution of some site/soils condition issues which was necessary in order for the purchaser to finance the project. However, staff recently received clearance from the County of San Diego which cleared the way for the transaction to be completed. This sale resulted in net proceeds of $1,288,623 to the Agency. The property was agreed to be sold for $1,350,000 with the Agency absorbing related escrow costs. Port District Properties The remaining four identified property sales are all reliant on actions to be taken by the Port District. Recently, the Port District took action to include $2,540,000 for the acquisition of "Chula Vista City Properties" in the 1996 Port District Capital Improvement Program. Of the four properties, two have been appraised so far by the Port. The other two are less certain as to the timing of their disposition, although Port staff indicate they will have these property appraisals completed within thirty (30) days. .ê.." Appraised Properties The Port District has appraised both the Marina View Park and Shangri.La properties. With respect to Marina View Park, the appraised value was determined to be $762,000 with the expected proceeds to be split 50/50 between the City and Agency. This split was deemed necessary since the City purchased the land, and the Agency paid for the improvements. It is unclear at this time with respect to the actual timing, although Community Development staff has taken the appropriate action to remove Marina View Park as a security asset for the Town Centre 1/ parking structure Certificates of Participation, which needed to be accomplished before the Port District could acquire the property. The Shangri.La property was appraised for $950,000. However, it is currently estimated that there will be up to $500,000 in "clean.up" costs for contaminated soils on the property that would have to be deducted from the purchase price or paid by the Agency before the sale. 5-3 Page 4, Item 5 . Meeting Date 01/23196 ;LJ(.,/~" Again the timing of this acquisition is contingent upon Port District action which has been requested. !h Non-appraised properties With the recent adoption of the Port CIP, the Port District has not, to date, appraised the Cappos and Marina Motor Motel properties. Staff is hopeful that substantial progress will be made since Port District staff has been directed to pursue these property dispositions immediately and expect to have property appraisals completed within thirty (30) days, The Cappos site recently received environmental clearance from the State which now clears the way for the property to be appraised. Additionally, no contamination issues are anticipated on the Marina Motor Motel site. .£.c Property Sales Summarv So far this fiscal year the Agency has received $2,353,173 in its effort to liquidate assets in order to eliminate the Agency's negative fund balances. If the remaining property sales are achieved, it is probable that in 1995-96 the Agency will derive $3,287,090 in - one.time revenue as follows: EI Dorado $1,064,550 Fuller Ford 102,917 South Bay Chevrolet 1,288,623 Marina View Park 381,000 Shangri.La 450,000 TOTAL $3,287,090 Of the above property sales, the only one that appears to be uncertain at this time is the net $450,000 sale of the Shangri.La property. Therefore absent the Shangri.La sale, the Agency would receive an estimated $2,837,090 in net revenue from property sales. However, if the Agency is able to sell the Cappos and Marina Motor Motel properties (currently estimated, but not appraised, at $1,750,000) either this fiscal year or next, the total property sales could be as much as $5,037,090 or $4,587,090 if the Shangri.La property is not sold. Tax Increment Revenue Included in the June 27,1995 report, staff had projected a total of $5,341,100 in tax increment revenue to be divided $4,483,167 for the RDA Project Area funds and $857,933 for the Housing Fund. However, the Finance Department has updated their projections to $4,254,595 for the Project Area funds and $1,024,254 for Low/Mod thereby totalling $5,278,849. The net effect is a projection decrease of $62,251. It needs to be noted that the reason for the decrease in the projection for the general Project Area funds with an increase in the Housing Fund, is due to the necessity to now make set. aside deposits from Town Centre II. Due to changes in redevelopment law, staff and the City Attorney are currently evaluating the degree to which the Agency may also have a retroactive obligation to make Low/Mod Housing contributions to Town Centre II for FY 93.94 and 94-95. Staff will seek to minimize such obligations in light of the Agency's fiscal constraints. S-i Page 5, Item § EXPENDITURES Meeting Date e1/23/9~/G.11t,.. As previously identified, the current year Agency operational budget has been pared down to the "bare bones" after several successive years of budget cutting. The following. two items 11 Funding of the City's Economic Development Program and 21 Re.evaluation of the Agency CIP, are actions taken to bring the on-going annual Agency budget into balance, For the purposes of this report, we've assumed that the actual "operational" expenditures this year will be the same as the amounts budgeted. It is too early to project with any accuracy the actual amount of expenditures for the current fiscal year. The only changes from the June 27th report on the expenditures side are relative to the CIP and the shifting of additional costs for the City's Economic Development Program from the Agency to the General Fund. FundinQ of the City's Economic Development ProQram As part of the budget approval process, staff Was directed to determine the appropriate amount of funding from the RDA's tax increment revenue for the City's Economic. Development Program, and bring back any necessary adjustments for the current year and the prior years. Pursuant to this analysis staff has made the recommendation under a separate report that the Agency should be responsible, in the current year, for 31.63% of the program costs (currently set at 65%), Therefore, if the Council/Agency concurs with the recommendation the following adjustments will be made: J!., Current Year A total budgetary amount of $214.447 to be shifted from the Agency budget to the General Fund which represents the aggregate reduction of the Agency's obligation from 65% to 31.63%. !h Prior Years Application of the 38.53% retroactive factor will result in an "adjustment" of $1,162,278 to be cleared through the retirement of long-term deferred debt owed to the General Fund, AQency CIP As also provided under a separate report, staff took action to completely re.evaluate the Agency's CIP in another effort to help limit Agency expenditures and/or identify alternative funding sources as part of the aforementioned "three-pronged" strategy. The result of the re- evaluation is that of the previously approved, but unfunded projects total of $3,047,141; staff is recommending that $1,381,235 be cancelled; $238,809 be deferred; and $1.427,097 be retained. Of the $1.427,097 to be retained, alternative (non.RDA tax increment) funding sources were identified in the amount of $1,015,350. The balance of $411,747 are housing.related projects and therefore are coming from the restricted Low/Mod Housing Fund. In order to simplify matters, staff has assumed that the housing CIP obligations ($411,747) will be actually expended this year. 5-5 Page 6, Item S Meeting Date Ð1"1.~9J: /'41, SUMMARY OF ACTIONS The Agency's three.pronged strategy outlined at the beginning of this report, has resulted in one-time revenues from property sales (EI Dorado Building and South Bay Chevrolet) to date of $2,353,173 with additional sales totalling $2,683,917 in the pipeline to be completed later this fiscal year or next year. Again, this one-time revenue from property sales are intended specifically for restoring the Agency's negative fund balances. Prudent budget cuts was identified as the second prong of the strategy. In essence, this has been occurring for the last several years in incremental fashion to bring the Agency's operational expenditures more in-line with its operational revenues. As an example of this trend, in FY 1993.94 the Agency actual operational expenditures (not including CIP) was $5,573,060. This expenditure level dropped dramatically the next year to $3,601,011. In the current year, the Agency's operations budget was reduced to $3,070,610. The final portion of the strategy relative to seeking alternative and/or more appropriate funding sources is illustrated by the Agency's actions on the Capital Improvement Program and the shifting of some of the funding obligations for the City's Economic Development Program. Both of these actions were the subject of separate but related reports and summarized previously in this report. The overall result is that the Agency has taken a previously unfunded CIP liability of $3,047,141 and whittled it down by a combination of cancelling projects ($1,381,235). deferring a little ($238,809), and finding alternative sources ($1,015,350). With respect to the Economic Development Program, the Agency will now be funding the program based upon a "pro.rata" share funding criteria. The current year result is to save the Agency $214.447 in operational costs. As long as the Economic Development Program continues to have a "city.wide" emphasis, then the Agency will continue to be responsible for a reduced pro-rata share percentage of the costs down significantly from the 85% in prior years, and 65% budgeted in the current year. FISCAL IMPACT The review and acceptance of this report does not in and of itself have a fiscal impact. However, included as Attachment 1 is an updated projected fund balance cash flow statement for the current fiscal year. The table has been updated from the spreadsheets provided in the June 27, 1995 staff report to reflect all of the adjustments on both the revenue and expenditure sides as discussed in this report. As indicated in the table, the Agency (non. Housing) project fund is expected to rebound sharply from the current combined fund balance of $-3,345,810 to $.399,554. As an expressed total with the restricted funds, the current $-1,534,645 fund balances should turn into a positive fund balance of $1,878.495. It is also helpful to look at the Agency budget by comparing on.going operational revenues with on.going operational expenditures. Therefore, included in Attachment 1 are line items identified as Operational Revenues, Operational Expenditures and Operational Surplus/(Deficit). The operational revenues are absent one-time revenues such as the property sales and other "reimbursements" whereas the operational expenditures are net of CIP expenditures. As the S-h Page 7, Item 5 Meeting Date 91/2J/~"'1 ~~ table indicates, the Agency Project Fund currently has an on.going operational deficit of $340,834. When accounting for the restricted funds, the combined operational deficit is $35,352. M ,\HOME\COMMDEVlHA YNES\AEPOATS\MIDYABUD .APT 5-7 This page blank. s-t CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ATTACHMENT 1 FY 1995-96 PROJECTED FUND BALANCES RDA aOUSING FINE ARTS TOTAL (l) BEG. FUND BALANCE ($3,345,810) $1,527,824 $283,341 ($1,534,"5) PROJECTED REVENUES Property Taxes $4,254,595 $1,024,254 $0 $5,278,849 Property Sales (2) $3,459,173 $0 $0 $3,459,173 Interest/Lease $73,154 $155,200 $15,700 $244,054 COP-GF $2,055,090 $0 $0 $2,055,090 Transfer In - Pkng Fund $288,200 $0 $0 $288,200 Loan Proceeds - Fine Arts $95,151 $0 $0 $95,15t ReimburBementB $20,000 $654,600 $0 $674,600 MiBcellaneouB $0 $13,700 $0 $13,700 TOTAL REVENUES $10,245,363 $1,847,754 $t5,700 $12,108,817 OPERATIONAL REVENUES (3) $6,382,839 $1,179,454 $15,700 $7,577,993 ESTIMATED EXPENDrTURES Staff ReimburBement $1,337,879 $467,383 $8,000 $1,813,262 Operations $376,836 $90,606 $0 $467,442 Capital Costs $296,272 $23,683 $0 $319,955 Capital Projects (4) S575,434 $411,747 $0 $987,181 TranBferB Out $211,466 $300,000 $0 $511,466 Debt Service (+ COPS) $4,501,220 $0 $0 $4,501,220 Lean to RDA $0 $0 $95,151 $95,151 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,290,107 $1,293,419, $103,151 $8,695,677 OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES $6,723,673 $881,672 $8,000 $7,613,345 YR. SURPLUS/ (DEFICrT) $2,946,256 $554,335 ($87 ,451) $3,413,140 OPERATrONAL SURPLUSI ($340,834) $297,782 $7,700 ($35,352) (DEFICIT) ENDrNG BALANCE ($399,554) $2,082,159 $195,890 $1,878,495 NOTES: (1) For Memorandum Purposes Only. Not to be used for evaluating the Agency'S financial position. (2) Property sales include as follows, Property Sales: FY 95-96 FY 96.97 Notes E1 Dorado Building $1,064,550 Bal. of $110,450 - Debt retirement South Bay Chevrolet $1,288,623 $1,350,000 - $62,000 costs Fuller Ford site $275,000 $275,000 LeBS Agency CIP costs totalling $172,083 Marina view Park $381,000 $762,000 split 50/50 with City Cappos $1,000,000 To be appraised by Port Marina Motor Hotel $750,000 To be appraised by Port Shangri-La $450,000 $1 mil - $500,000 clean-up costs Total $3,459,173 $2,025,000 (3) "Operational" revenues identified to be compared with "operational" expenditures. This comparison nets out one-time revenues and CIP expenditures. (4) ABsumes all of the RDA funded CIP ia actually expended this current year. en expenditures are offset by, Transfer In ($288,200), Fine Arts Loan ($95,151) and proceeds from Fuller Ford Bale ($1",083). "lqpro""yn~\b"d,,'\""'~W<l s-? This page blank. $-(0 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -.!L Meeting Date .Q1 /23/!)~ I (., I ~ (:. ITEM TITLE: A. AGENCY RESOLUTION /.¿!f-5'AuthoriZing (1) Reimbursement of $271,112 to Rohr, Inc. in accordance with Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP #3, (2) Deferral of payment of $98,388 to the City Traffic Signal Fund, (31 Retention of $30,000 of reimbursement until sewer monitoring facility odor problem is resolved, (4) Deferral of the Fine Art Fee, and (5) Directing staff to include $16,313 reimbursement of Development and Permit fees to Rohr Inc. in the 1996-97 Budget, and (6) Authorizing Executive Director to execute a letter of agreement with Rohr Inc. in connection with the above, ¡(;¡/B'/'7 Z B. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION (1) Appr priating $87,112 from Fund 230 - Parking Meter Fund and $134,000 from Fund 231 . In. lieu Parking Fee Fund to Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Fund, and (2) Appropriating $50,000 from the unappropriated balance of Fund 222 . Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to CIP Project RD220 . Rohr Reimbursement SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director L .~ , REVIEWED BY: "'M;., D;,w°'ff (4/5ths Vote: Yes -X. No_I Council Referral Number: ~ BACKGROUND: In accordance with Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP#3 entered into in 1991 between the Redevelopment Agency and Rohr Inc, for the construction of a 245,000 square foot industrial office building at 850 Lagoon Drive, certain costs for public improvements installed by Rohr during construction were eligible for reimbursement. Rohr has completed the required prerequisites for two of the three reimbursements and has requested that the Agency agree to a modified reimbursement schedule for the third item. Rohr has requested that the provision for the Fine Arts Fee be modified and a new provision be approved for the portion of Phase .II work under Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP#4 that was completed during Phase I. The reimbursable items under BF/OP#3, the Fine Arts Fee, and the Phase II work are discussed in the following report. In addition, it is recommended that the Parking District and In.lieu Parking Fee Funds reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for parking improvements installed within the Downtown Parking District and paid by the Agency. These funds would be appropriated to the, Bayfront/T own Centre I Redevelopment Fund and applied toward the Rohr reimbursement CIP project. January 18, 1996 4,04pm {; - / Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date ~ ~1¿,lq(, RECOMMENDATION: A. That the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution: 1) Authorizing the reimbursement of $271,112 to Rohr Inc.; 2) Authorizing deferral of payment of $98,388 to the City Traffic Signal Fund and the City's retention of $30,000 until the sewer monitoring facility odor problem is resolved; 3) Authorizing the Executive Director to execute a letter of agreement with Rohr, Inc. deferring the $150,000 Fine Arts Fee; and, 4) Directing staff to include $16,313 reimbursement of development and permit fees to Rohr for completion of a three story parking structure expansion at 850 Lagoon Drive and directing staff to include this reimbursement in the Agency's 1996.97 budget. B. That the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating from the unappropriated balances: $137,112 from Fund 230 . Parking Meter Fund and $134,000 from Fund 231 - In.lieu Parking Fund to the Bayfront/town Centre I Redevelopment Fund, and $50,000 from Fund 222 . Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to CIP Project RD220 . BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On September 21, 1995, the Town Centre Project Area Committee voted 3.1 to recommend that the City Council appropriate unappropriated fund balances of the Parking Meter Fund and In.lieu Parking Fee Fund to the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Project fund balance to reimburse the Agency for parking improvements. DISCUSSION: Phase I of Rohr Office Complex at 850 Laaoon Drive BF/OP#3 In 1991, the Redevelopment Agency agreed, in an Owner Participation Agreement (BF/OP #3) with Rohr Inc. for the construction of a 245,000 sq. ft. building at 850 Lagoon Drive, to partially reimburse Rohr for the construction of a public water service and a new sewer monitoring facility and for restriping the intersection of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive. In addition, the Agency agreed to pay for 83% of the traffic signal fee and pavement restriping at Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive required for the project. Rohr agreed to pay a $150,000 Fine Arts Fee. Each of these items are itemized and their status discussed below. 1. The Agency agreed to reimburse to Rohr $240,000 of the construction costs to provide water service to the mid.bayfront area to meet the fire code requirements of 5,000 + g.p.m. for the project and other future uses. The Engineering Department audited the related construction costs and found $240,000 to be a valid reimbursement. 2. The Agency agreed to contribute $109,500 toward the cost to install a traffic signal and January 18, 19% 4:04pm ~ -).-- Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date e1/Z3/98 :1-] G.l q 10 pavement restriping at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive. The Engineering Department audited the related construction costs and found that the request for reimbursement of $11,112 for the cost of pavement restriping to be appropriate and the balance of $98,388 will be contributed to the City toward a future traffic signal at Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive. 3. The Agency agreed to reimburse to Rohr $50,000 of the construction cost of a new sewer monitoring facility as required by the Metropolitan Sewer District. The facility was constructed; however, an occasional odor problem has persisted in the area. The monitoring facility mayor may not be the source of the odor problem. The source of the odor problem is currently being investigated. If the source is the monitoring facility, the solutions range from a change in filter media in the best case to the installation of a P.trap in the worst case. Engineering has estimated the P-trap installation cost at approximately $30,000. Rohr proposes that the Agency retain $30,000 of the $50,000 reimbursement until the City Engineer is reasonably satisfied that any odor problems caused by the facility have been corrected. If the facility is found to be the cause of the odor problem and all other efforts fail to correct the odor problem, the $30,000 retention will be used by the City to install a P.trap. 4. Rohr agreed to pay a $150,000 Fine Arts Fee for Phase I. Rohr is requesting that the Phase I fee be deferred until the completion of Phase II. This would allow a combined art project to be done during Phase II construction to compliment the total office complex. Staff feels that Phase II of the Rohr office complex may be delayed indefinitely due to the uncertain economic conditions in the industry. Staff will revisit this issue in the future should Phase II be cancelled permanently. 5. The Agency staff is investigating the process to establish a reimbursement district for the construction of street improvements installed on the north side of Lagoon Drive that were in excess of the street improvements required for the Phase I project development at 850 Lagoon Drive. 6. The Agency staff will cooperate with the water district to establish a reimbursement district for the construction of water service improvements installed that were in excess of the requirement for Phase I project development at 850 Lagoon Drive. Phase II of Rohr Office Buildinq at 850 Laqoon Drive BF/OP#4 In 1992, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a second owner participation agreement with Rohr Inc. The second agreement, BF/OP#4, entailed provisions for the construction of a second office building (125,000 sq. ft.) and a three story addition to the parking structure at 850 Lagoon Drive. As part of that agreement and as a development incentive, the Agency agreed to reimburse Rohr an amount not to exceed $737,000 to off.set the costs of development and permit fees. Rohr decided to construct the additional three stories of parking and provide Phase II lanu"')' 18. 1996 4,04pm (p~3 Page 4. Item ~ Meeting Date 91/23:96 ~11..11l,.. infrastructure improvements (at a cost of an estimated $5,300,000) with the first office building since it would be cost effective to do so, The second office building was not constructed and the second phase owner participation agreement (BF/OP#4) expired. Because of this additional Phase II investment, the Agency will derive approximately $53,000 annually in redevelopment tax increment. It is therefore recommended that 100 % of the development and permit fees ($16,313) paid by Rohr for the three story parking addition be reimbursed to Rohr. FISCAL IMPACT Phase I of Rohr Office Complex BF/OP #3 The following is a chart of the three reimbursable items discussed in BF/OP #3 and audited by the City Engineering Department and the amounts found to be appropriate for reimbursement. Agency BF/OP #3 Staff Audit Staff Recommendation Water System $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 reimbursement to Rohr Sewer Monitor 50,000 50,000 $20,000 reimbursement to Rohr for sewer monitoring facility Retain $30,000 until filter system completed Traffic Signal/ 109,500 98,388 Remit $98,388 to City for Restriping 11,112 signal fee, $11,112 reimbursement to Rohr for restriping $271,112 reimbursement to Rohr. $ 30,000 sewer monitor retention $ 98.388 to City traffic signal Total $399,500 $399,500 $399,500 Capital Improvement Project RD220 was established in 1991 for BF/OP #3 expenditures. The amount of $399,500 was approved for the project. Of that amount, $98,388 is to be deposited with the City for a Traffic Signal Fund payment. It is being recommended the payment to the Traffic Signal Fund be deferred until a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of lagoon Drive and Bay Boulevard. It is recommended that $30,000 of the $399,500 be temporarily retained by the City until the sewer monitoring facility odor problem is resolved. And, it is recommended that the $271,112 that has been requested by Rohr be reimbursed to Rohr at this time from RD220. (A report to the Agency/City on the Agency's CIP including alternative funding sources for the Rohr Reimbursement CIP Project RD220 is a companion item to this agenda statement. In the January 18, 1996 4,Q4pm b~i Page 5, Item ~ Meeting Date 91/23/96 .:Lll,.lq~ CIP report, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution appropriating a combination of funds to the Redevelopment Agency to fund the Rohr reimbursement. If that recommendation is approved by the City Council, Item B of this agenda item, Council Resolution , need not be adopted and the following italicized discussion may be disregarded.) Although CIP account RD220 was established for the Rohr reimbursement CIP project, no Redevelopment funds are available to fund the account. A t the time that the CIP account was established, Agency revenues were not transferred to specific CIP accounts; rather, funds were transferred as needed from general Agency revenues. In the Agency's current deficit situation, funds are not available. As discussed in the report to the Agency on the Agency's CIP evaluation, non.tax increment funding sources for the project have been researched and it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency request that the City Council appropriate from the unappropriated fund balances in the Parking Meter Fund in the amount of $87, 112 and the In-lieu Parking Fee Fund in the amount of $134,000, and the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund in the amount of $50,000 to fund the Rohr reimbursement CIP project. Since 1985, the Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Fund has contributed a sum of $1,712,196 for the purchase, improvement, and renovation of parking facilities located within the Downtown Parking District. In view of the current Redevelopment Agency budget constraints, it is being recommended that the Parking District reimburse the Agency at this time in the amount of $221,112 for a portion of its prior years financial contributions to parking improvements. Currently, the public parking lots are being used at 50% to 75% overall capacity depending on the day of the week; therefore; it is not anticipated that additional parking improvements will be necessary in the near future. In addition, it is recommended that the portion of reimbursement for the sewer monitoring facility ($50,000) be funded by the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. The Metropolitan Sewer District required the sewer monitoring facility within the Midbayfront when Rohr constructed the office building at 850 Lagoon Drive. The monitoring facility is designed to meter the amount of sewage that enters the sewer system from the Midbayfront. Since Rohr's building was the first to be constructed in the Midbayfront, it was their responsibility to install the facility which has the capacity to serve future development in the area. The Director of Public Works agrees that the construction of this sewer facility is an appropriate use of Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve funds. Funds recommended to be appropriated from the unappropriated fund balances by the City Council to Bayfront/Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Fund and to CIP Project RD 220 a r e : Fund 230 Parking Meter Fund $87,112 Fund 231 In-lieu Parking Fee Fund 134,000 Fund 222 Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve 50.000 Total Available for Appropriation $271,112 January 18, 1996 4:04pm 6 _5 Page 6, Item ~ Meeting Date &:1123196 ..2-Je./ q(... Fine Art Fee If the Agency accepts staff's recommendation the Fine Arts Fee would be deferred until construction of Phase II. The Fine Arts Fee is $150,000 for Phase I and would require a match from Agency funds. Staff is recommending deferral until Phase II is completed, but retains the option to revisit this item if Phase II is cancelled. Phase II of Rohr Office Complex If the Agency accepts staff's recommendation, $16,313 in development and permit fees will be reimbursed to Rohr for the three story parking structure addition. 1996.97 tax increment revenue is being recommended as the source of funding and should be reflected in the 1996- 97 Redevelopment Budget. Iprbdisklrohrat t 3.newl January 18, 19% ',04pm 6~b URAFT MINUTES TOWN CENTRE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE CITY OF CHULA VISTA :\ Thursday, September 21, 1995 ~ Council Conference Room 8:45 a.m. Q~ City Hall 1. Roll Call: 8:58 a.m. Members Present: Chairman Blakely, Members Altbaum, Apodaca, Killian. - Members Excused: Vice Chairman Winters and Members Hawk and Mason. Staff Present: Principal Community Development Specialist Pamela Buchan and Community Development Specialist, Miguel Tapia. MSC (Killian/Altbaum) (4-0.3. Hawk. Winters and Mason absent) to excuse members Hawk. Winters and Mason absence from this meeting. 2. Approval of Minutes of September 7.1995. MSC (Altbaum/Killian) (4'().3. Hawk. Winters and Mason absent) to approve minutes as mailed. PARKING BUSINESS 3. Election of Officers. This item was tabled until the next meeting. 4. MSC (Killian/Blakely) (3-1-3. Member Altbaum opposed) to approve staff's recommendation that the City Council appropriate $154.200 from the Parking Meter Fund 230 and $134.000 from the In-LIeu Parking Fee Fund 231 and 50% of future annual unencumbered revenues from the Parking Meter Fund 230 to the Bayfront Town Centre I Redevelopment Project fund balance to reimburse the Agency for parking improvements up to the. amount of $1.423.996. 5. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS: Chairman Blakely stated that he would like staff to bring back information on parking signs and the ordinance. 6. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Altbaum stated that he will be reporting on the Mayor's Committee on every agenda. 7. STAFF COMMENTS: None 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 9. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10: 13 a.m. to the next regular meeting of October 5. 1995. [tcpacmindisk!b:\sep21-95 .minl /P-7 This page blank. ~,-f AGENCY RESOLUTION / ig;5 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING (1) REIMBURSEMENT OF $271,112 TO ROHR, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OWNER PARTICIPA TION AGREEMENT BF/OP #3, (2) DEFERRAL OF PAYMENT OF $98,388 TO THE CITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND, (3) RETENTION OF $30,000 OF REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL SEWER MONITORING FACILITY ODOR PROBLEM IS RESOLVED, (4) DEFERRAL OF THE FINE ART FEE, (5) DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE $16,313 REIMBURSEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND PERMIT FEES TO ROHR, INC. IN THE 1996-97 BUDGET AND (6) AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH ROHR INC. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE. WHEREAS, the Agency and Rohr Inc., entered into an Owner Participation Agreement (BF/OP#3) for the construction of a 245,000 square ft., building at 850 Lagoon Drive and the Agency agreed to participate in the construction of certain public improvements by reimbursing Rohr for certain costs for public improvements installed by Rohr during the construction of said building and related facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Agency agreed to reimburse to Rohr $240,000 of the construction costs to provide water service to the mid-bayfront area to meet the fire code requirements of 5,000 + g.p.m. for the project and other future uses and the Engineering Department audited the related construction costs and found $240,000 to be a valid reimbursement; and, WHEREAS, the Agency agreed to contribute $109,500 toward the cost to install a traffic signal and pavement restriping at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive and the Engineering Department audited the related construction costs and found that the request for reimbursement of $11,112 for the cost of pavement restriping to be appropriate and the balance of $98,388 will be contributed to the City toward a future traffic signal at Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive; and, WHEREAS, The Agency agreed to reimburse to Rohr $50,000 of the construction cost of a new sewer monitoring facility as required by the Metropolitan Sewer District. The facility was constructed; however, an occasional odor problem has persisted in the area. The monitoring facility mayor may not be the source of the odor problem. The source of the odor problem is currently being investigated. If the source is the monitoring facility, the solutions range from a change in filter media in the best case to the installation of a P-trap in the worst case. The City Engineer has estimated the P.trap installation cost at approximately $30,000. WHEREAS, Rohr proposes that the Agency retain $30,000 of the $50,000 reimbursement until the City Engineer is reasonably satisfied that any odor problems caused by the facility have been corrected. If the facility is found to be the cause of the odor problem and all other efforts fail to correct the odor problem, the $30,000 retention will be used by the City to install a P-trap. h-1 WHEREAS, Rohr agreed to pay a $150,000 Fine Art Fee in accordance with BF/OP #3 and Rohr requests that the payment be deferred in light its current financial circumstances and the slower than expected expansion of their Facility to which this fee relates; and, WHEREAS, Rohr Inc., paid $16,313 in development and permit fees for which they would otherwise be entitled to reimbursement under BF/OP #4, and the Agency will derive benefit, approximately $53,000 annually in Bayfront redevelopment tax increment from the three story expansion to the parking structure at 850 Lagoon Drive to which such fees relate. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, detennine and resolve that the Agency: 1. Authorizes the reimbursement of $271,112.00 to Rohr Inc. in accordance with Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP #3. 2. Authorizes deferral of payment by the Agency of $98,388 to the City Traffic Signal Fund until the traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive. 3. Authorizes retention of $30,000 of reimbursement otherwise due to Rohr Inc. under BF/OP #3 in connection with sewer improvements installed by Rohr, Inc. until resolution of the sewer monitoring facility odor problem. 4. Authorizes the deferral of the $150,000 Fine Arts Fee otherwise due pursuant to BF/OP #3 until the earlier to occur of the completion of the next Phase of Rohr's expansion or December 31, 1999; and authorizes Rohr, Inc. to satisfy this requirement in lieu of cash with installation of a fine arts element of equal value. 5. Approves $16,313.00 reimbursement of development and permit fees to Rohr for completion of a three story parking structure expansion at 850 Lagoon Drive from future Bayfront redevelopment tax increment revenue in 1996-97 budget. 6. Authorizes the Executive Director to execute a letter of agreement with Rohr Inc. indicating, Rohr Inc. 's agreement with the above actions, in a form approved by the Agency Attorney, with the above actions being (a) contingent upon Rohr Inc. 's execution of such agreement, and (b) subject to the terms and conditions thereof. PRESENTED BY; APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ~ J-; ~ JL~/ Chris Salomone Community Development Director M: Ish.",dlattomeylrohm:b, rao h --- /0 RESOLUTION NO. -.ff/ 9 7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) APPROPRIATING $87,112 FROM FUND 230 - PARKING METER FUND, AND $134,000 FROM FUND 231 - IN.lIEU PARKING FEE FUND TO BA YFRONT fTOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT FUND, AND (2) APPROPRIATING $50,000 FROM THE UNAPPRROPRIATED FUND BALANCE FUND 222 - TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RD220 . ROHR REIMBURSEMENT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency budget is constrained and projected tax increment revenues will be needed to fund Redevelopment Agency's operations and obligations; WHEREAS. Redevelopment Agency's Capital Improvement Program has been reviewed and the Redevelopment Agency as a source of funding has been evaluated; WHEREAS. as a result of said evaluation CIP Project RD220, Rohr Reimbursement was identified as a priority project; WHEREAS. it has been proposed that the Parking Meter Fund and the In.lieu Parking Fee Fund reimburse the Redevelopment Agency for parking improvements installed within the Parking District by the Redevelopment Agency; WHEREAS, the Town Centre I Project Area Committee, on September 21, 1995, voted to recommend that the City Council approve reimbursement to the Redevelopment Agency for said parking improvements by the Parking Meter and In.lieu Parking Fee Funds; WHEREAS. Rohr Inc. installed a sewer monitoring facility in the Midbayfront as required by the Metropolitan Sewer District that will have capacity for and benefit future development in the Midbayfront. NOW THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find. order. determine and resolve as follows: The City Council does hereby appropriate (1) $87,112 from Fund 230 - Parking Meter Fund, and $134,000 from Fund 231 . In.lieu Parking Fund to BayfrontfTown Centre I Redevelopment Fund, and (2) $50.000 from unappropriated balance of Fund 222 . Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to Capital Improvement Project RD220 . Rohr Reimbursement. PRESENTED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: ~L,î~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director M :Isharadlattorneylrorhcc.rso to ~ /J This page blank. 6 --Iv