Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1995/06/27 JrE:V/SElJ AGEMbA b -,2to - 95 Tuesday, June 27, 1995 4:00 p.m. (immediately following the City Council meeting) Council Chambers Public Services Building Soecial Meetine: of the Redevelooment Aeencv of the City of Chula Vista 1. ROLL CALL: 2. CALL TO ORDER Members Alevy _' Moot _' Padilla _' Rindone _' and Chairman Horton APPROVAL OF MINUfES: June 13, 1995 (Adjourned Special Meeting) and June 13, 1995 (Special Meeting) 3. RESOLUTION 1454 4. RESOLUTION 1459 BUSINESS APPROPRlATING FUNDS, ACCEPI1NG BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLmON AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (RD-133)- -The Agency adopted Resolution 1454 at their meeting of 6/20/95. The City Attorney has requested staff resubmit the resolution with wording in the text of the resolution to appropriate funds and indicate therein the account from which funds would be appropriated. Staff recommends the Agency reconsider and re-adopt the resolution. (Community Development Director/Director of Public Works) ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The Redevelopment Agency budget, with commentary, was presented for approval as part of the City budget process. As required under California Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency must meet and adopt their Budget. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) 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. "I declare under penalty of perjury that I am em.. ,Io':ed by the City of Chula Vista in the Commun.ty De\'eiopment Department and that! posted this Agenr',8!,'loiice on the Bulleti~ Board at the Public Services BUildin~ at ~Ity H~JerlZ/~" DATE, GIU./~IGNE ruL.tJ I g:6"S f.,IY), Agenda -2- June 27, 1995 OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) 7. MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn (to a closed session and thence) to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting on July II, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers . CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia v. City/Redevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff (Continued from the meeting of June 20. 1995) 9. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION * * * * * lie COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERlCANS 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. [Co I WP51 IAGENCYlAGENDASI06-27 -95 .AGD] MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 13, 1995 11:20 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Alevy, Moot, Padilla, and Acting Chair Rindone ABSENT: Chair Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 2. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) - None 3. CHAIR'S REPORTfS) - None 4. MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11:22 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on June 20, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION MSC (Alevy/Rindone) to continue the Closed Session item for one week. Approved 4-0-1 with Horton absent. The Redevelopment Agency did not meet in Closed Session. 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: . Anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Chula Vista Auto Park developers - South Bay Chevrolet and Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia vs. City/Redevelopment Agency based on statements made in June 8th letter from Auto Park developers to staff. 6. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - None ~"I Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 2 by: Respectfully submitted, ~VE~LY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk , L ' . ~ "L" -\, Vicki C. Soderquist, CM ,Deputy City Clerk J-~ MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 13, 1995 Council Cbambers 9:59 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Alevy, Mool, Padilla, Rindone, and Cbair Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, Cily Clerk BUSINESS 2. RESOLUTION 1454 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (RD- 133) - The work includes removal of buildings and disposal of existing improvements, excavation, grading, and other miscellaneous work. The clearance of the site is being done to facilitate the construction of the Broadway Business Homes project. Staff recommends the Agency accept the Status of Soil Testing Information Memorandum and continue the Awarding Contract for Demolition and Site Clearance of Existing Building to the regular Agency meeting of 6/20/95. Continued from the meeting of June 3, 1995. (Director of Community Development) 4/5th's vote required. Mr. Goss stated staff wanted to encourage the redevelopment of Broadway witb sometbing unique tbat would change tbe landscape of Broadway. Even Ihough there had been two letters offering a little more for the property, it should be kept in mind tbat the Agency bad a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with the Citrons regarding tbe site. He felt Ibere was a commitment to work through the specific terms of that agreement even though there were others making offers on the site. The issue was whether the Agency proceeded with the existing agreement. It could send the wrong message to the business community if the Agency strayed from the semi-exclusive negotiating agreement. Based on the staff report the total tax increment would be greater with the business homes project tban other projects offered at the present time. Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, stated the pre-demolition testing did take place and he was present on tbe site as well as Craig Citron, representing the developer. Woodward Clyde Consulting did the work and he then outlined the procedure utilized. The raw data obtained indicated that 9 of the 30 boring locations did bave some level of contamination. Of those, two bad relatively high levels. The consultant was in the process of interpreting that data and would make a more formalized verbal report by next Tuesday and a full written report would be available at the end of the month. Mr. Boogaard stated staff had received terms of an offer from the Citron's attorney by FAX and he was prepared to discuss it along with the staff position in Closed Session as a listed item on the agenda. Mr. Goss questioned if there was an estimate on the type or amount of clean-up that might be required. Mr. Monaco replied that staff hoped to have further information next week. They currently did not know the actual amount of soil altbough they did know the type of contaminants. Member Moot questioned whether any hazardous materials were found. Mr. Monaco replied that hazardous materials were not found. The Agency met in Closed Session at 10:13 p.m, and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. with Chair Horton absent. ~-.3 Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 2 Acting Chair Rindone requested that the City Attorney report actions taken in Closed Session. Mr. Boogaard stated it was not normally considered a reportable action, nor was he authorized to report actions from Closed Session unless there was unanimous consent, but there was unanimous agreement that be should make Ihe report. The Agency was prepared to proceed with the demolition of the site as long as the tests that were presently being conducted sbowed no bigh or unacceptable remediation costs. That would be evaluated within tbe next several weeks when the report was received. It was the consensus of the Agency that staff proceed without the need for a binding agreement with the proposed developer. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated staff would report back next week. . Joesf Citron, 761 Golden Park, San Diego, CA, representing Joelen Enterprises, thanked the Agency, City Attorney, and staff. He was encouraged by wbat he was hearing and felt Ihat from the initial information received regarding the soils testing tbere would be no surprises. He requested that the negotiations proceed on tbe DDA so that a consensus would be developed with the project moving ahead quickly so they could stay on schedule. They had a date of 7/21195 to have the working drawings completed and ready to submit for a building permit. Because of the nature of the project they needed tender loving care from all involved to bave it come to fruition. Acting Chair Rindone stated the direction to staff was to proceed judiciously in completing the DDA. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORTIS) - None 4. CHAIR'S REPORTCS) - None 5. MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11:22 P.M. 10 the Regular Redevelopmenl Agency Meeting on June 20, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. CLOSED SESSION The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session at 10:13 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: . Instruction to Negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 760 Broadway (Parcel #'s 571-200-13, 571-200-14, 571-200-15, 571-200-16, and 571- 200-17). Negotiating Party: Joesf and Lenore Citron (Joelen Enterprises); Chris Salomone, ~~y Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 3 Community Development Director and Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator (on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency) Price and Payment Terms. 7. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - Mr. Boogaard stated it was not normally considered a reportable action, nor was he authorized to report actions from Closed Session unless there was unanimous consenl, but there was unanimous agreement that he should make the report. The Agency was prepared 10 proceed with the demolition of the site as long as the tests that were presently being conducted showed no high or unacceptable remediation costs. That would be evaluated within the next several weeks wben the report was received. It was tbe consensus of the Agency that staff proceed without tbe need for a binding agreement witb the proposed developer. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/ AAE. City Clerk by: ;), .#5 -. Thís page Blank ~-(p J'¡~ ~. 3 MEMORANDUM June 22, 1995 TO: The Honorable Chairman and RedevelopmeMncy Members VIA: John D. Goss, Executive DirectorJG:¡] FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Developme t JÇ{ctor CS ' SUBJECT: Resolution 1454 At its June 20, 1995 meeting the Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution 1454. The City Attorney has requested staff resubmit the resolution with wording in the text of the resolution which appropriates funds and indicates therein the account from which funds would be appropriated. Staff has added the following text to the body of the resolution: Section 4. The Agency hereby appropriates funds in the amount of $107,000 from the Otay Valley Road Project Area Fund to Account RD-133. Staff recommends the Agency reconsider and readopt Resolution 1454. IBBIC:I WP51 lAG ENCYIM EMOSII N FOMEM09 50 7. M EM] 3-1 --.. Thís page Blank 3-¡ RESOLUTION 1454 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has received the following six sealed bids at 2:00 p.m. on May 3, 1995 in Conference Rooms 2 and 3 of the Public Services Building for Demolition and Site Clearance of Existing Buildings at the Fuller Ford Site at 760 Broadway in the City of Chula Vista, California: Contractor Bid Amount 1. Watkins Contracting, Inc. - San Diego $ 89,417.00 2. Cement Cutting, Inc. - San Diego 94,747.00 3. Cin-Mar Industries, Inc. - San Pedro 97,500,00 4, Roberts Engineering Contractors - Escondido 117,200.00 5. Mark McDowell Corporation - San Diego 128,667.00 6. Rutledge Gradalls - Jamul 135,957.00 WHEREAS, the low bid by Watkins Contracting, Inc., is below the Engineer's estimate of $100,000 by $10,583 or 10.6%; and WHEREAS, shortly after receiving bids, the City received a fax letter from the second apparent low bidder (Cement Cutting, Inc.) questioning the qualifications of the apparent low bidder, Watkins Contracting, Inc., to perform the work; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed Watkins Contracting, Inc" references and determined that the contractor has the required license, the relevant experience and resources to carry out the work necessary for the demolition and related work associated with the Fuller Ford Project and, therefore, recommends the contract be awarded to Watkins Contracting, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved on the project and determined that the project is exempt from CEOA under Section 15061 (b)(3), the "general rule" that CEOA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effort on the environment; and WHEREAS, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEOA; and WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is redevelopment funds and the prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Director of Industrial Relations, State of California, and were determined to be applicable to the work to be done; and WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents and disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the "Notice to Contractors" to various minority trade publications, 3-3 Resolution 1454 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has determined that the project is exempt from CEOA under Section 15061 (b)(3). Section 2, That the Redevelopment Agency does hereby accept the bid of Watkins Contracting, Inc., as responsive. Section 3. The Redevelopment Agency awards the contract for the demolition and site clearance of existing buildings at the Fuller Ford site at 760 Broadway in the City of Chula Vista, California in the amount of $89.417 to Watkins Contracting, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder which submitted a responsive bid to the approved specifications. Section 4P. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract for and on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency. PRESENTED BY: ZlASTOF "'00 M. ,O~" John P. Lippitt Director of Public Works Agency General Coun el [BBIWP51 IAGENCYIRESOSIRES01454.RESI J-~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 06/27 95 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION 1451 Adopting the Redevelopment Agency Budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96 and Appropriating Funds Therefor SUBMITTED BY: Di",,'" of com"'f""opm,", c.c" REVIEWED BY: Executive Director (4/5ths Vote: Yes - N°-1L) Council Referral Number: - BACKGROUND: This year the Redevelopment Agency budget, with commentary, was presented for approval as part of the City budget (pages 338 through 351). This is noteworthy in that the Agency budget has been approved separate from the General Fund and All Funds budgets for many years, usually in July or August. This has been an acceptable practice since each had large reserves and tended to operate somewhat autonomously from the other. However, with.the Agency reserves now depleted, the two funds are very much interrelated, and hopefully by presenting them together, it has assisted in understanding the "big picture" relationship between the two budgets. Nevertheless, the Redevelopment Agency is still required to take a separate resolution action to formally adopt its annual budget. RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency adopt the resolution which approves the Fiscal Year 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency 8udget in the total amount of $5,788,759 as follows: Operations ($2,765,663); CIP ($65,500); and Debt Service which includes the TABS, BCT and the "Transfers Out", not the COPS which are budgeted in Fund 300 ($2,957,596). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: General Overview As presented in the City budget and updated through supplemental budget reports (most notably report #24), it has been acknowledged that the Redevelopment Agency has experienced several difficult budget years in a row characterized by recessionary declining property values, State "takeaways", and major property reassessments. The result has been that the Agency has not experienced the tax increment growth necessary in order to protect the General Fund from exposure. With direction from the Agency Board, staff made significant progress during the 1995 budget year to market and will ultimately sell significant, but non-essential property assets in order to balance the budget and return to a positive fund balance. Although not all of the property sales contemplated to be completed during the 1995 budget year will come to fruition, the financial benefits of staff's progress during the year will be realized during the coming year. As also indicated in Supplemental Budget Report #24, staff understands that the selling off of property assets is only a short-term solution and that it's necessary to produce and implement a more longer term plan. Therefore, it is helpful to look at the Agency's finances by comparing the basic sources of revenue (tax increment, interest and lease income etc.,) 4--1 Page 2, Itemï Meeting Date 06/27/95 against the basic sources of expenditures (operations, debt service, and CIP) in order to arrive at an annual projected "gap" that will need to be addressed. Included as Attachment 1 are the updated graphs and spreadsheets (handed out at the June 21 Budget Workshop) which projects an annual deficit "gap" of $650,000 for 1996-97 and $500,000 in 1999-00, With the goal in mind to eliminate those projected "gaps", staff has recommended the following general approaches to the Agency Board: 1, Ensuring development in the Bayfront Project inasmuch as the Bayfront Refunding Bonds annual debt service is in the $2.5 million range, with current tax increment in the combined Bayfront/Town Centre I project only being in the $2.65 to $2.7 million range. 2. Exploring the possibility of other non-City funding sources to fund the BCT operation thereby eliminating annual operating expenditures of approximately $200,000. 3. Continuing to relieve the Agency of funding obligations that have non-direct or nebulous benefit to the project areas under the more restrictive "elimination of blight" test. 4. Although it is somewhat self-evident, a commitment to bringing in significant development projects within the respective project areas in order to increase the property tax increment revenue necessary to reduce any further exposure to the General Fund. Adoption of 1995-96 Aqencv Budqet The proposed Redevelopment Agency Budget for 1995-96 of $5,788,759 consists of the following: Operations Staff Reimbursement $2,027,709 Operating Accounts 737.954 Subtotal $2,765,663 CIP Capital Costs 65,500 Subtotal 65,500 Debt Service Tax Allocation Bonds 2,446,130 Bayfront Conservancy Trust 196,466 CHIP 300,000 Insurance 15,000 Subtotal 2,957,596 GRAND TOTAL $5,788,759 4-¡ Page 3, Item-&s Meeting Date 06/27 95 It is important to note that the only difference between the table on the previous page and the attached budget balance sheets (Attachment 2) is the treatment of the Certificates of Participation. In the budget balance sheets, the COPs expenditures are included in the debt service amount, however, it is offset by the booking of the corresponding revenue from the General Fund. Formal adoption of the budget should not include the COPs debt service since it was included in the General Fund Debt Service Fund 300 account. Propertv Sales As previously indicated, the Agency 1995-96 budget surplus is predicated on approximately $3,9 million in property sale revenue as follows: Propertv Purchaser Amount 1. EI Dorado City - DIF $1,300,000 2. Fuller ford Developer 550,000 3. "Cappos" Port District 750,000 4. Marina Motor Hotel Port District 1 ,000,000 5. Marina View Park Port District 343.000 Total $3,943,000 In addition to the above referenced property sales which are included in the revenue projections, the Agency could also experience some revenue enhancements in the event that the lower Sweetwater Valley site can be sold for development ($620,000) and if the Agency receives some net proceeds from the sale of the "Shangri-La" site ($300,000 - $400,000). FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the resolution will authorize the appropriation of $5.788.759 for the above referenced and identified amounts to cover Operations, CIP, and Debt Service payments. As indicated in the attached budget balance sheets, the fiscal impact of the Agency "All Funds" budget is to eliminate a $-2,015,596 fund balance by producing a $4,407,695 surplus and thereby ending the year with a positive balance of $2,392,099, However, as the Agency Board is well aware, the "All Funds" balance includes restricted funds from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund and the Fine Arts Fund which are restricted for specific limited purposes, Therefore, a more accurate reflection of the Agency's fiscal condition is to look at the Agency's general operating funds only. Again, by looking at the budget balance sheets, staff is projecting a $3,550,791 surplus thereby eliminating a $-2,382,507 fund balance and ending with a positive balance of $1,168,284. The projected surplus is predicated on property asset sales totalling $3,943,000. IC:IWP51IHAYNESIREPORTSI96BUDGET.1131 Lj-3 Thís page Blank ~ -~ ATTACHMENT 1 c> en c> (]) en co 0> (f) en ~ ~ u. t W (]) U 0> ~ 0> 0 >. c ro L... 0 ro 0> ~ ~ rn ~ ~ wee u. 0 GO ..s::: 0>"0 0> ~ ~ C ~ $ ~ ~ 0> C u.. ~ w ~ E 0> ~ C ~ en a. "- CD (]) 0 "0 0> CO W c ~ (f) >W ~ W"O ~ t "OW J> ~ W ~ 0> 0 ~ 0 ~ L... ~ W U. ~ "--' ..s::: 0 ~ ~ ~ 0> $ D- ~ I u. ........... ........... ........... ........... a a a a a a a a ~ a a a ~ a a a a ~ a a a a a a a ~ a a a a a a a ~ a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a ~ M N ~ ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <:¡, --- --- --- --- y -5' Thís page Blank Lf-(P C> rJ) C> ( ) I co CJ) 0> en >- >- LL 1:: ( ) 0> a. 0> 0 ....... I ~.- 00 L.. 0.0 0> a.. >- ....... C:'+- ::J ()} ()} LL 0 0)0 00 .J:: :t= <eÙ) 0> S I t-- ....... :J 0> I c: - >- ()} e- LL E :J t-- 0> CJ) c...CJ) I CO ( ) °"U 0> m >- en ()} ()} LL >- >....... 1:: ()} ~ CO ( ) 0> I a. "U .~ 1.0 0 ()} 0 0> L.. D::a: >- a.. LL .J:: :t= 1.0 S 0> I V I 0> >- LL .......... .......... a a a a a a '" a a a ER- a a "'d a a a a a § - ¡.¡.. a a a a a ~ a a a a a a a a a a §2 CD ..;;t N N ~ :::::: ER- ER- ER- ER- ER- ~ .......... .......... 4~7 Thís page Blank 4-t rJ) Q) 8 ¡CO I (f) 0> >- 0> t >- Q) u. c.. 0> e ~ a.. co ...... en 0> :J ~ (1.) >- 0 0 0 u. £ C:c: co ~ (1.) rn 0> 0>- ~ ~ rn 0> ...... aJ >- c: u. (1.) "'C I"-- en Ec: 0> Q) :::J cD co Q.. LL. 0> (f) .Q "'C ~ ~ (1.) (1.) CD Q) > ...... 0> c.. (1.)0 I 0 LO t.... "'C . ~ 0> a.. (1.) 0 >- ..c: c:: "- u. ~ ~ LO S ~ I 0> >- U. '" ...-... ...-... ...-... ...-... '"d a a a a a a § a ~ a a a a ~ a a a a a ] a a a a b- "5 a a a a a ~ a a a a a ~ N Ñ v ID ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <0> .......... .......... .......... .......... z 4-q Thís page Blank If -10 a en 9 Q) Q) CO Q) (f) >- >. LL t:: Q) Q) ....... Q) c.. ~.- I 0 " (.) ro ~ '-'.- Q) a.. c: '+-0) >- +-' 0) LL ~ 0>0 ro 0 ~ Q) £ « en ~ .- .......::J Q) S c: - >- 0) ~ LL E ::J ~ a. (f) cD en 0 Q) Q) - ""0 >- CO 0) 0) LL (f) >1:5 CD >. 0) 0) ~ t:: ""0 . ~ I.C) Q) 0) 0 Q) ~ ~ ~ >- ~ ~~ LL a.. I.C) .!: Q) +-' I '- ~ S ~ I .....-... .....-... a a a a a a a a a a a ~ a a ~ a a a a a a § a a a a a a ~ a a a a a a ~ a a a a a a '5 - - þ ~ ('t') N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e: -- -- 0 ..... <1) z If-f/ Thís page Blank Y-Id-. w 0 () 0 I Z 0) « 'U 0) >- -A Q) Q) LL. « ....., () (( 0 c:: 0) 0 0) Q) I Z '-, CO ex> 0- 0) ::> ~ CO >- I.l.. (LCC LL. 0 ~'U ex> Z 0) 0 c:: I W f'-. c:: :J 0) Q)LL >- LL. ~oð f'-. .......... 0) .- I 0 ....., ....., co c:: .0 0) I.l.. >- Q)¡¡:: LL. W E Q) 0 co '-" 0..0 0) - I en 0"""" 1.0 ::> - ( ) 0) -A Q) :J >- 0- >- LL. 0::: Q) e- 1.0 ::> 0) en "'C :J I V Q)en 0> I 0::: >- LL. --- --- a a a a a a ~ a a a Y7 a a 5 a a a a a ~ a a a a a ~ a a a a a <U a a a a a .~ - - .þ ('i) N ~ ~ N '" Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 ~ ........... ........... 4-13 Thís page Blank Li -IY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS "ALL FUNOS- FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 BEG. FUND BALANCE ($389,177) ($2,015,597) $2,392,098 $2,143,296 $1,957,362 $1,847,280 REVENUE TAX INCREMENT $5,791,359 $5,341,100 $5,447,922 $5,556,8aO $5,668,018 $5,7a1,378 INTEREST $97,219 $12a,000 $143,526 $128,598 $117,442 $110,837 RENTALS /LEASES $265,279 $116,054 $120,000 S120,000 S120,000 $120,000 PROPERTY SALES $1,183,000 S3,943,000 $0 So SO SO OTHER S501,469 $668,300 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 TOTAL P,838,326 $10,196,454 $5,711,44a $5,a05,478 $5,905,460 $6,012,215 EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS S3,721,594 S2,765,663 $2,793,320 $2,821,253 $2,849,465 S2,a",960 DEBT SERVICE $3,566,905 $2,957,596 $3,166,930 $3,170,160 $3,166,076 $3,159,972 CIP $2,176,247 $65,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $9,464,746 $5,788,759 $5,960,250 $5,991,413 $6,015,541 ,6,037,932 SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) ($1,626,420) $4,407,695 (S24a,a02) ($la5,935) ($110,Oa2) ($25,717) END FUND BALANCE (S2,015,597) $2,392,09a $2,143,296 $1,957,362 Sl ,a47 ,280 Sl ,a21 ,563 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS NET OF RESTRICTEO FUNDS FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-9a FY 9a-99 FY 99-00 BEG. FUND BALANCE ($2,370,652) ($2,382,508) $1,16a,2a3 $522,099 ($132,722) ($717,250) REVENUE TAX INCREMENT $4,a1a,497 $4,4a3,167 $4,35a,33a S4,445,504 ,4,534,414 S4,625,103 INTEREST S29,219 $37 ,100 PO,097 $0 $0 $0 RENTALS/LEASES S175,279 S36,054 S40,000 ,40,000 $40,000 $40,000 PROPERTY SALES $1,la3,000 $3,943,000 SO SO SO ,0 OTHER $463, Oa9 $0 $0 $0 ,0 SO TOTAL ,6,669, Oa4 sa,499,321 ,4,468,435 S4,485,504 S4,574,414 ,4,665,lO3 EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS ,2,406,a55 S2,225,434 ,2,247,6aa ,2,270,165 ,2,292,867 ,2,315,796 OEBT SERVICE ,3,266,905 ,2,657,596 ,2,a66,930 ,2,870,160 ,2, a66,076 S2,859,972 CIP ,1,007,180 ,65,500 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 TOTAL ,6,6aO,940 $4,948,530 $5,114,61a $5,140,325 $5,158,943 $5,175,76a SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) (Sl1,a56) ,3,550,791 ($646,la4) ($654,a21) (S5a4,52a) ($510,665) END FUND BALANCE (S2,3a2,50a) ,l,16a,283 ,522,099 (,132,722) ($717,250) ($1,227,915) NOTES, 1. 95-96 TAX INCREMENT ASSUMES ZERO GROWTH FROM 94-95 WITH A S400,000 LOSS IN SUBVENTION REVENUE (REFUNDING) AND $50,000 LOSS FROM ROHR REASSESSMENT. PROJECTIONS ASSUME 2. GROWTH. 2. "OPERATIONS" COSTS ARE NET OF DEBT SERVICE, CIP , "TRANSFERS OUT", AND ASSUME 1% GROWTH 3. DEBT SERVICE INCLUDES TABS, BCT 'TRANSFERS OUT Y-/5 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS WITHOUT PROPERTY SALES "ALL FUNDS" FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-9B FY 9B-99 FY 99-00 BEG. FUND BALANCE ($3B9,l77) ($3,19B,597) ($2,733,902) ($3,126,230) ($3,440,762) ($3,66B,2B5) REVENUE TAX INCREMENT $5,791,359 $5,341,100 $5,447,922 $5,556,BBO $5,668,018 $5,781,378 INTEREST $97,219 $128,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 RENTALS/LEASES $265,279 $116,054 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 PROPERTY SALES SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER $501,469 $668,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL S6,655,326 $6,253,454 S5,567,922 $5,676,BBO $5,7BB,018 S5,901,37B EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS $3,721,594 $2,765,663 $2,793,320 $2,821,253 S2,849,465 $2,B77,960 DEBT SERVICE $3,566,905 $2,957,596 $3,166,930 $3,170,160 $3,166,076 $3,159,972 CIP $2,176,247 $65,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $9,464,746 $5, 7BB, 759 $5,960,250 $5,991,413 $6,015,541 S6,037,932 SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) ($2,809,420) $464,695 ($392,328) ($314,532) ($227,523) ($136,554) END FUND BALANCE ($3,19B,597) ($2,733,902) ($3,126,230) ($3,440,762) ($3,66B,2B5) ($3,B04, B39) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS WITHOUT PROPERTY SALES NET OF RESTRICTED FUNDS FY 94-95 FY 95-96 FY 96-97 FY 97-9B FY 9B-99 FY 99-00 BEG. FUND BALANCE ($2,370,652) ($3,565,50B) ($3,957,717) ($4,673,99B) ($5,328,B19) ($5,913,347) REVENUE TAX INCREMENT $4,81B,497 $4,4B3,167 $4,35B,33B $4,445,504 $4,534,414 $4,625,103 INTEREST $29,219 $37,100 SO SO $0 SO RENTALS/LEASES $175,279 S36,054 $40,000 S40,000 $40,000 $40,000 PROPERTY SALES $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 OTHER $463, OB9 SO $0 $0 SO $0 TOTAL $5,4B6,OB4 $4,556,321 S4,39B,33B $4,4B5,504 $4,574,414 $4,665,103 EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS $2,4O6,B55 $2,225,434 S2,247,6BB $2,270,165 $2,292,B67 $2,315,796 DEBT SERVICE $3,266,905 $2,657,596 $2,B66,930 $2,B70,160 $2,B66,O76 $2,B59,972 CIP $l,O07,lBO $65,500 SO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $6,6BO,940 $4,94B,530 $5,114,61B $5,140,325 $5,15B,943 $5,175,76B SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($1,194,B56) ($392,209) ($716,281) (S654,B21) (S5B4,52B) ($510,665) END FUND BALANCE ($3,565,50B) ($3,957,717) ($4,673,99B) ($5,32B,B19) ($5,913,347) (S6,424,012) NOTES, 1. 95-96 TAX INCREMENT ASSUMES ZERO GROWTH FROM 94-95 WITH A $400,000 LOSS IN SUBVENTION REVENUE (REFUNDING) AND $50,000 LOSS FROM ROHR REASSESSMENT. PROJECTIONS ASSUME 2% GROWTH. 2. "OPERATIONS" COSTS ARE NET OF DEBT SERVICE, CIP & "TRANSFERS OUT", AND ASSUME 1% GROWTH 3. DEBT SERVICE INCLUDES TABS, BCT & TRANSFERS OUT 4-{(p REDEVELDPMENT AGENCY FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS WITHOUT PROPERTY SALES "RESTRICTED FUNDS. FY 94-95 FY 95-9. FY 9.-97 FY 97-9. FY 9.-99 FY 99-00 BEG. FUND BALANCE $',9.',475 $366,911 $1,223,815 $1,424,875 $1,639,613 $1,868,357 REVENUE TAX INCREMENT ¡972,..2 $857,933 $.75,092 $.92,593 ¡91O,445 $928,654 INTEREST $68,000 $90,900 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 RENTALS/LEASES $90,000 $80,000 $81,600 $83,232 $84,897 $86,595 PROPERTY SALES SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 OTHER $3B,380 S668,3oo $0 ¡o $0 $0 TOTAL $1,169,242 SI,697,133 $1,046,692 $1,065,B25 $1,085,342 $1,105,249 EXPENDITURES OPERATIONS $1,314,739 $540,229 $545,631 $551,088 $556,59B $562,164 DEBT SERVICE $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 CIP $1,169,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $2,7B3,806 $840,229 $845,631 $851, 08B $B56,59B SB62, 164 SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) ($1,614,564) $B56,9O4 S201, 060 $214,73B $22B,744 $243,084 END FUND BALANCE $366,911 $1,223,815 $1,424,875 $1,639,613 $I,B6B,357 $2,111,441 NOTES, 1. "RESTRICTED FUNDS" INCLUDE LOW/MOD HOUSING. FINE ARTS 2. FINE ARTS PUND GENERALLY RECEIVES APPROXIMATELY 15,000 ANNUALLY WITH ANNUAL EXPENDITURES DF $B,OOO 3. FINE ARTS ENDING FUND BALANCE IN 94-95 IS APPROXIMATELY $280,000 AND GROWS AT $5,000 ANNUALLY 4- // Thís page Blank 4-/~ ATTACHMENT 2 FY 94-95 21-Jun-95 PROJECTED REVENUES RDA HOUSING FlNEARTS TOTAL' Property Tax $4,818,497 $972,862 $5,791,359 Property Sales" $1,183,000 $1,183,000 Investment Earings $29,219 $55,000 $13,000 $97,219 RentalslLeases $175,279 $90,000 $265,279 Reimb. (other agencies; incl MV Park) $229,788 $229,788 Reimb. (Paint pit) $218,863 $218,863 Miscellaneous $14,438 $38,380 $52,818 Total Revenues $6,669,084 $1,156,242 $13,000 $7,838,326 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES RDA HOUSING FlNEARTS TOTAL Staff Reimbursement (CD) $1,052,815 $396,643 $1,449,458 Staff Reimbursement (Other) $560,294 $60,204 $8,000 $628,498 SUBTOTAL-STAFF $1,613,109 $456,847 $8,000 $2,077,956 Professional Services $210,565 $85,991 $296,556 Other Specialized Services'" $67,732 $0 $67,732 Advertising $3,167 $500 $3,667 Photography $0 $45 $45 Travel $5,100 $1,300 $6,400 Promotional Expenses (inct. Town Mgr.) $87,880 $0 $87,880 Training $700 $180 $880 Utilities $4,708 $0 $4,708 RentalslLeases $0 $0 $0 Other Contractual Services $28,962 $0 $28,962 Mat'llo Maintain Bldgs. $100 $0 $100 Olher Commodities $26 $0 $26 Property Tax Admin (County charges) $34,925 $0 $34,925 ERAF $232,871 $0 $232,871 Expense Allowance $5,780 $1,500 $7,280 SUBTOTAL-OPERATIONS $682,515 $89,516 $0 $772,031 Planning, Survey, Design Feasibility $10,000 $0 $10,000 Operation of Acquired Property $91,230 $9,376 $100,606 Acquisition Expense $10,000 $0 $10,000 Relocation (Casa Nueva Vida rehab.) $0 $118,000 $118,000 Land (see 95-96 revenues) $0 $633,000 $633,000 Capital Projects $1,007,180 $1,169,067 $2,176,247 Debt Service $3,050,120 $0 $3,050,120 Transfers Out (BCl) $201,785 $0 $201,785 Transfers Out (Other) $15,000 $300,000 $315,000 SUBTOTAL-CAPITAL $4,385,315 $2,229,443 $0 $6,614,758 Total Expenditures $6,680,939 $2,775,806 $8,000 $9,464,745 SURPLUS/(DEFlCI1) ($11,855) ($1,619,564) $5,000 ($1,626,419) BEGINNING BALANCE ($2,370,652) $1,704,436 $277,039 ($389,177) ENDING BALANCE ($2,382,507) $84,872 $282,039 ($2,015,596) , For memorandum purposes only. .. Sale of South Bay Chevrolet @$I,183,OOO(netofctosingcosts). ... Other Specialized Services are net of economic development staff charges. Lf - ¡e>¡ .-. FY 95-96 21-Jun-95 PROJECTED REVENUES RDA HOUSING FINE ARTS TOTAL PmpertyTaxo $4,483,167 $857,933 $5,341,100 Property Sales" $3,943,000 $0 $3,943,000 Investment Earings $37,100 $75,200 $15,700 $128,000 RenlaWLea...o" $36,054 $80,000 $1l6,054 Certir. orParticipalion (rmm GF) $2,055,090 $2,055,090 Reimbur1lemenls-Other Agencies $654,600 $654,600 Mi"",lIaneous $13,700 $13,700 Total Revenues $IO,554,411 $1,681,433 $15,700 $12,251,544 RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES RDA HOUSING FINE ARTS TOTAL slarr Reimbur1lement (CD) $942,125 $354,504 $1,296,629 Starr Reimbur1lement (Olber) $610,201 $1l2,879 $8,000 $731,080 SUBTOTAL - STAFF $1,552,326 $467,383 $8,000 $2,027,709 Pmr""ional Services $228,723 $38,333 $267,056 Other Specialized Services $51,705 $0 $51,705 Advertising $2,550 $600 $3,150 Pholography $0 $50 $50 Travel $1,720 $t,l00 $2,820 Pmmotional Expen... $24,630 $0 $24,630 Training $0 $0 $0 Utililies $0 $0 $0 Renlal,fLea... $0 $0 $0 Other Contractual Services $27,662 $0 $27,662 Mat'llo Maintain Bldgs. $500 $0 $500 Other Commodilies $100 $0 $100 Pmperty Tax Admin (County charges) $34,926 $0 $34,926 ERAF $0 $0 $0 Expen", Allowance $4,320 $1,080 $5,400 SUBTOTAL-OPERATIONS $376,836 $41,163 $0 $417,999 Planning, Survey, Design F"",ibility $155,000 $0 $155,000 Operation or Acquired Pmperty $141,272 $23,683 $164,955 Acquisition Expen", $0 $0 $0 Relocalion CosIs $0 $0 $0 Land $0 $0 $0 Capital Pmjects"" $65,500 $0 $65,500 Debl Service (incl. COPS) $4,501,220 $0 $4,501,220 Transrers Oul (BeI) $196,466 $0 $196,466 Transrers Oul (Other) $15,000 $300,000 $315,000 SUBTOTAL - CAPITAL $5,074,458 $323,683 $0 $5,398,141 Total Expendilures $7,003,620 $832,229 $8,000 $7,843,849 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) $3,550,791 $849,204 $7,700 $4,407,695 BEGINNING BALANCE ($2,382,507) $84,872 $282,039 ($2,015,596) ENDING BALANCE $1,168,284 $934,076 $289,739 $2,392,099 0 Pmperty lax lower due 10 slate subvention no longer being applicable rollowing bond refinancing. " Pmperty sales include, Fuller Ford ($550,000), Cappos property ($750,000), Marina Molor Hotel ($1,000,000), RDA share or Marina View Park ($343,000) and EI Dorado Building ($1,300,000 in 1995-96). 0" Rental and lease income decreased due 10 one-lime 94-95 property lease payments in connection with the auto park. "" Capital pmject cost assumes remainder or Fuller Ford site work (RD 133). Y-JD RESOLUTION J~ffj RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1995-96 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, Redevelopment Agency staff have prepared budget requests for various redevelopment project areas and the Redevelopment Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency has determined that the planning and administrative expenses are necessary for the production, improvement, or preservation of Low and Moderate-Income housing; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed and approved the budgets contained in fund numbers 980, 981, 985, 990, 991, 992, 993, and 994, and has determined that the planning and administrative expenses are necessary for the elimination of blight within the respective project areas, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby appropriate funds for the purposes set forth in the 1995-96 Redevelopment Agency Budget submitted by the Executive Director, subject to the same terms, conditions and authorities given to the City Manager over the City's budget, summarized by Fund Number, as follows: FUND PROJECT/PROGRAM AMOUNT 980 Debt Service - Bayfront TABS $2,446,130 981 RDA Housing Program (CHIP) 300,000 985 Southwest Project 315,320 990 Bayfront/Town Centre I 1,316,940 991 Redevelopment Fine Arts 8,000 992 Town Centre II Project 274,650 993 Low/Mod Income Housing 532,150 994 Otay Valley Project 318,570 PRESENTED BY: ~ ~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director [C:IWP51 IAGENCYIRESOSIRESO1411.RESI 4-d-1 - - Thís page Blank 4-))" -. - _.~._.