Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/07/12 Tuesday, July 12, 1994 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Adjourned Soecial Meeting of the Redevelooment Agencv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: Members Fox -, Horton -' Moore -, Rindone -, and Chainnan Nader - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 7, 1994; June 7, 1994; and June 21, 1994 BUSINESS 3. RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by California Conununity Redevelopment Law. Staff reconunends continuation of this item to the 7/19/94 meeting. (Administration/Conunnnity Development) Continned from the meeting of 6/21/94. 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 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) 6. MEMBERS' COMMENTS ..- Agenda -2- July 12, 1994 ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on July 19, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., inunediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ****** COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chnla Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special acconunodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such acconunodation at least forty-eighthonrs 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 Teleconununications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C;IWP51 IAGENCYIAGENDASIO7.12.94.AGD] MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, Juoe 7, 1994 Council Conference Room 7:42 p.m. City Hall Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency Members Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. BUSINESS Member Rindone noted there were two Redevelopment Agency agendas and questioned why that had occurred. Chris Salomone, Director of Community of Development, responded that the budget item was continued to the current meeting from the last budget workshop. The agenda had been forwarded to Council as a result of the adjoumed meeting action. The other agenda had taken the normal path through the agenda process. The two agendas should have been combined. 3. RESOLUTION 1390 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1993-94 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1993-94 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by California Conununity Redevelopment Law. The formal Agency adoption of the budget had been delayed in order to determine the full impact of State budget resolutions and to complete the evaluation of staffmg needs for the Economic Development function in the Community Development Department as directed by City Council during and subsequent to the City's budget review process. This item was continued from the meeting of June I. 1994. Staff recommends anoroval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) Mr. Goss stated one of the major issues was the deficit of the Agency that was occurring annually. One of the reasons for the deficit was a significant reduction in revenue due to State take aways and the Rohr reassessment. It was unknown as to what the future State take aways would be. It would take time for the tax increment and various project areas to increase to the point where they would support the regular operating expenses. Options presented were: I) cut back on City operations supported by the General Fund; 2) borrow from General Fund reserves; 3) borrow money from sewer reserves; 4) borrow money from General Fund and sewer reserves; 5) change the City's investment policy to enable the pooled investment account to be reinvested in the RDA; and 6) sell City assets. Staff had originally recommended that money be borrowed from the sewer fund in order to cover the deficit for 1993/94, but in reviewing all accounts of the RDA they would not be going into a deficit for 1993/94, but would next fiscal year. He proposed the Agency adopt the 1993/94 budget and replenish the low/moderate income housing fund in 1994/95 through one of the options presented. The tum around for the low/moderate income housing fund would have to be done as soon as possible because there was always a risk of a lawsuit. He presented a chart which showed the dates the properties had been purchased. He felt whatever action taken by the :¿ -/ Minutes June 7, 1994 Page 2 Agency should be reviewed annually. He recommended the Agency sell some of their assets and look at the investment policy to bridge the gap until the tax increment of the Agency improved. He felt the Agency had been successful in promoting economic development. Member Rindone stated he was concemed with the deficit of the RDA and the loss of approximately $2.2 million annually. He questioned what the bond rating was for the 1993 Certificates of Participation. Susan Merrill, Interim Finance Administrator, responded they were between 6.4% and 6.8%. Member Rindone questioned if there was any significance in reissuing the Certificates of Participation. He further questioned what had caused the change in the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds in the proposed budget from the 3/15/94 proposal. Ms. Merrill responded that the first draft of the budget was done on a calendar year and the second draft was done on a fiscal year basis. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated for the last three years staff had been holding over the Agency budget until the State impact was known. Early in January staff was ready to come forward with the budget and the Agency had directed staff to look at economic development staffmg. The same budget was brought forward in March. When it was sent back staff went to Finance to look at current fund balances, accurate data, etc. which resulted in the changes. Since the budget was six months late staff went back and got the fund balances which historically had not been available when the budget was approved. Member Rindone noted the Agency was in month twelve of a twelve month budget and questioned how a public agency could spend money without an adopted budget. Mr. Salomone responded that the budget was adopted as part of the City's full budget package. What was not done was the redundant action of the Agency adopting the budget. Under State law that process had to be followed. Over the last three years because the State did not adopt their budget until months after the fiscal year and they were raiding the Agency's funds the budget had been held back to make those adjustments. The budget the Agency was operating under was a budget that had been adopted by the Council, but the duplicate budget had not been adopted by the Agency. Member Rindone stated he respectfully disagreed with staff because they were sitting as the Agency and the authorization of expenditure of funds from the RDA had to be from the RDA budget. He did not feel it was appropriate to spend money from a budget that had not been approved. The budget should be adopted prior to the beginning of a fiscal year and if there were changes or modifications those should be brought forward as necessary. The Redevelopment Agency had been lax in that procedure and he would not condone that type of activity in the future. Member Moore stated Council approved all the money whether it was the Agency or Council through the regular budget process. He questioned why the State required that the Agency forward a budget. Mr. Salomone responded that the City operated as a Redevelopment Agency under State law and they required the Agency to submit a budget and audited the Agency frequently. Member Rindone stated an item that was on the 3/15/94 budget, and not on the revised budget, was fund 300 for Town Centre II and questioned why it was no longer a debt service. Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist, responded that the particular item was folded in and separated into the 1987 Certificates of Participation, Series B, Town Centre I and Town Center II. It was a more accurate way of showing the actual debt service in the revised budget. ,2-2..- Minutes June7,1994 Page 3 Member Rindone stated those numbers were in the previous budget and since the March 15th budget it did not show a reflection of the $571,000. He requested that staff get back to him on that item. He referred to the shortfall and a fund balance of $760,000 from a loan from another City fund and questioned what the loan was. Mr. Goss responded that since there was a positive fund balance there would not be a need for a loan from another City fund. Member Rindone questioned how much the Agency supported the General Fund through generation of sales tax revenues and the payment of staffing costs for other departments since the 1986 Certifications of Participation had been funded. Mr. Goss responded the bond money was not used solely for operations because at the time the Agency had other revenue sources such as minor leases and tax increments from various project areas which helped to support operations. As far as supporting City staff, it was supporting City staff outside of Community Development that supported the operations of the Community Development Department. Member Rindone felt before the Agency could make a decision on the budget they needed to know what had been siphoned off from the RDA for staff costs. There was another way of looking at it, i.e. it prevented the City from digging into the General Fund reserves to cover those costs. Therefore, it was building up General Fund reserves at the expense of the Redevelopment Agency. He referred to the twenty-four properties listed and questioned if staff could attest that all properties, except for one, i.e. #23, had been directly purchased by the RDA budget 1986 Tax Allocation bonds. Mr. Salomone responded that he could not. The corporation yard had been purchased prior to that date and it would require further analysis to determine. Staff would report back to the Agency with that information. Member Rindone stated $36 million had been authori2ed in 1986 and there was just less than $25 million in purchases, there was at least a gap of $11 million since 1986. He questioned where that $1.5 million was going every year. Mr. Salomone stated one clear source was to pay the debt service on the bonds. Member Rindone stated he also wanted information on the payment of staffing costs to other departments annually since 1986. Mr. Goss stated the RDA operated in arrears as they put money into land, property, and development and they received the tax increment later and the City received the sales tax. Historically, the General Fund had loaned money to the Agency and the Agency still owed money to the General Fund. Member Rindone stated he was going to urge the development of a plan to get the Agency out of debt and was trying to get the information necessary to devise that plan. He stated it was clear to him that they did not have a plan to address the deficit. Mr. Goss stated he had presented options for consideration and had expected feedback from the Agency. He could develop a plan on what he wanted the City and Agency to do, but it was a major issue and there was a wide range of altematives, therefore, he felt he needed to get feedback from the policy makers. Member Rindone questioned why that had not been done on 3/15/94 as it impacted the solvency of the City. Mr. Goss stated because it was so close to the end of the fiscal year it was his intent to present those options during the course of the budget as the Agency looked ahead. It had originally appeared that a loan from another fund could 02-3 Minutes June 7, 1994 Page 4 have finished out 1993/94 because the basic problem was much bigger and could not be solved in two or three months. Member Rindone questioned how many loans had been made to the agency and what the total was. Mr. Goss stated they had been done on an as needed basis with most of them made in the early and mid-1980's. He felt approximately $1-$1.7 million was still outstanding. He did not know the total amounts of the loans. Member Rindone requested that staff retum with that information. Mr. Salomone responded that the information was contained on page 3-19, i.e. $1,907,091. Member Rindone suggested that staff not only look at the loans in arrears, but the shortfall between the revenues and expenditures, what had to be mitigated because of the loss of revenues due to the tax allocation bonds having to pay the debt service back, and retum with a plan for the Agency's consideration. Mr. Goss stated it was more complicated than that because they would have to take into account the tax increment received and how it had been reduced. Certain assumptions had also been presented, i.e. that in four or five years there would be the beginning of a tax increment stream on the bayfront. If the Agency did not feel that was a correct assumption staff needed to know that before putting together a recommended solution. Member Rindone felt staff should present a preferred option and then several alternatives for review. In the interim he felt information should be brought back to the Agency on the four or five items discussed. Member Moore felt there was room for improvement regarding information flow. Redevelopment by design was in debt, the question was how much profit there was to pay the staff to continue their economic and redevelopment efforts and have money to entice, attract, and subsidize business. The country was in a recession and the Agency reflected that. If the Agency wanted increased funding they needed to get the bayfront developed. He felt the Agency could sell the public works yard with the condition that they move within a specified number of years and a plan would be submitted with checks and balances. Information presented should include old data with strikeouts and new data for comparison. Member Fox stated he was extremely reluctant to approve any option that relied on bayfront revenues. MS (RindonelHorton) to trail the item for two weeks and direct staff to: I) provide data requested during the discussion of the budget; 2) staff return with a plan for the adoption of the 1993/94 RDA budget; 3) staff return with a plan for the adoptinn of the 1994/95 RDA budget; and 4) return with a preliminary discussion of options for addressing the RDA deficit between the present time and 2002 or the projected break even point for revenues and expenditures. Member Horton stated she did not want to consider the selling of the City corporation yard as the Agency would not get even half of the value of the property. She felt it would be a tremendous loss to the Agency. Items 21 and 22 could be sold and she questioned if there was someone interested in the properties. Mr. Salomone responded that there were potential buyers for those two properties. Chairman Nader stated he would support the motion, but could not support an option that relied on bayfront revenues. He was concemed that a bayfront plan would be approved that was not in the City's best interests just because it had been budgeted. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. 02-1 Minutes June7,1994 Page 5 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(s) - None 5. CHAIRMAN'S/MA YOR'S REPORT(s) - None 6. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:57 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on June 21, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: ;{-5 _.- - Thís ¡age íntentíonaIIy lift blank. J. -/, MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 7, 1994 Council Chambers 7:42 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Horton. Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: Jobn D. Goss. Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 17. 1994 MSC (Horton/Nader) to approve the minutes of May 17, 1994 as presented. Appnlved 4.0.0-1 with Rindone ahstainin¡:. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and apprnved 4-0-0-1 with Fox ahstaining. Agency/Council Memher Fox stated he would abstaio from votmg as be had not reviewed the information as he was out of town on City business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted. 4.A. RESOLUTION 1406 APPROVING A DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,313.76 PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTED RELOCATION PLAN FOR A RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLD LOCATED AT 459 I' STREET WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA..At the Joint Meeting of 4/5/94 the Agency/Council approved Advance Assistance and Moving Expense relocation payments for the five tenants located al 459 F Street. Marco and Cecelia Gonzalez hereby make their tinal claim tÒr a.""tance. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) B. RESOLUTION 17505 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $7,313.76 FROM THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (#GG.130) ClP FOR THE PAYMENT OF A DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PA Y~IENT FOR A RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLD LOCATED AT 459 I' STREET 5. RESOLUTION 1407 APPROVING A FINAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE CLAIM FOR A TENANT PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT 334 CHURCH AVENUE AND TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,300 THEREFOR AS PART OF THE CHURCH AND CENTER PARKING LOT 02-7 Minutes June 7,1994 Page 2 PROjECT--The Agency approved the acquisition of thIS property at its 313192 medlng. Stall requests a final Rental Assistance payment for the last tenant to lïle a claim per Agency authmization. Stall recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) 6. RESOLUTION 1408 APPROVING SIGN PROGRAM FOR SOUTH BAY CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON OTA Y V ALLEY ROADnThe Chula Vista Auto Center Master Plan for the Chula Vista Auto Park requires that the Agency and the Design Review Commillee approve sign programs for the new auto dealerships. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Direélor) 7.A. RESOLUTION 17506 APPROVING A SITE LEASE BY AND BETWEEN HO RETAIL PROPERTIES I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE CHULA VISTA CENTER PARKING GARAGE-.On 3/5/92 the Agency approved the Second ExpanSIon ofthe Chula Vista Center. This recently completed project required $2.6 million in assistance by the AgCIKY toward construélion 01 the parking garage. Certilïcates of Participation were recently sold IÖr the purpose of satdYlng the Agency's assistance obligation. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) B. RESOLUTION 17507 APPROVING AN OPERATING LEASE BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HO RET AIL PROPERTIES I LIMITED PARTNERSHI P FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CHULA VISTA CENTER PARKING GARAGE * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 8. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SALE OF SPACE NUMBER III AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK--This is a request to aulhorize the sale of Agency.owned Space III at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Staff recommends approval of the resolulion. (Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 1409 APPROVING THE SALE OF SPACE NUMBER III AT ORANGE TREE MOBILEHOME PARK AND AUTHORIZING TIlE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS This being the time and place as advertised. the puhlic hearing was declared open. There heing no public testimony, the puhlic hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 1409 OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN NADER, reading of the text was waived. Chairman Nader questioned if il was the space where his oftïce staff had made an inqoiry of Community Development slaff. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, responded that he did not know. Chairman Nader requested that staff t()lIow.up and 101 him know. Agency Member Fox stated he would abstain from voting hecause he had not reviewed the materials. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 1409: approved 4-0-0-1 with Fox ahstaining. ;¿-8 Minutes June 7, 1994 Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS None suhl11itkù. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulleù: none. The minutes will rdkct the puhlished agenùa orùer. OTHER BUSINESS 9. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS) . None 10. CHAIRMAN/MA YOR'S REPORT(S) . None II. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS' COMMENTS. None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 8:57 P.M. to the Regular Reùevelopl11ent Agency Meeting on June 21, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immedialely following the City Council meet mg. m the City Council Chamhers. hy: c2 - r Thís ,age íntentíonaIly left blank. cl -It) MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 21, 1994 Council Chambers 10: 13 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Acting Chairman Horton ABSENT: Chairman Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney, and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 3, 1994; May 23, 1994; May 26, 1994; and June I, 1994 MSC (Horton/Moore) to approve the minutes of May 3, 1994; May 23, 1994; May 26, 1994; and June I, 1994 as presented. Approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY ACTING CHAIRMAN HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted. 4. RESOLUTION 1410 AMENDING THE TOWN CENTRE I SIDEWALK CAFÉ POLICY- In 1982 the Redevelopment Agency approved the establishment of the Town Centre I Sidewalk Café Policy. Since adoption of the policy, only a few sidewalk cafés have been set up for short periods of time. With the idea of encouraging restaurant, coffee shop, and bakery operators to set up sidewalk cafés, staff has reviewed the existing policy. The proposed amendment to the existing policy is being presented for consideration and approval. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS 5. RESOLUTION 1390 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1993-94 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--ITEM #5 IS AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL oJ -II Minutes June 21, 1994 Page 2 MEETING ITEM--The FY 1993-94 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City hudget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by California Community Redevelopment Law. The formal Agency adoption of the budget had been delayed in order to determine the full impact of State budget resolutions and to complete the evaluation of staffing needs for the Economic Development function in the Community Development Department as directed by City Council during and subsequent to the City's budget review process. Continued from the meeting of 617/94. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) Member Moore questioned if the budget included salaries, benefits, promotions, etc. for each of the individual projects. Mr. Goss responded that was correct. The Community Development budget and Redevelopment budget were sliced up by project areas. Each program listed was an allocation of the overall budget. The major problem was that they were suffering from an on-going deficit due to State budget take aways and a reassessment at Rohr in 1989/90. Staff initially though the RDA budget would go into the red for the current fiscal year, but in reviewing the material and overall numbers it became clear the Agency would not go into the red in the current fiscal year. It had been recommended that the 1993/94 budget be adopted and then look at the issue of the deficit for the 1994/95 budget. He had submitted a report which included broad policy issues regarding the deficit. He then reviewed those options. Specific recommendations were: 1) the 1994/95 budget be adopted by disposing of Agency owned properties in order to reduce long term debt and that the approach be revisited; 2) update annually to chart the financial direction of the Agency; and 3) revise the investment policy to permit investment which would have a cap, i.e. not to exceed 8% of the investment pool. He was proposing that next years Agency budget reimburse the low/moderate income housing funds so there would not be a loss. He felt the proposal would lead toward a reduction of the expenditures of the RDA budget without impacting its ability to be effective. Staff had tried to be creative in dealing with a difficult problem. Member Rindone stated he was pleased that two steps had been taken, i.e. recognition that there was a problem and development of a proposal to address the issue. He questioned how much the debt service would be reduced. Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist, responded that the proposal called for a reduction of the debt service on the 1986 tax allocation bonds of approximately $1.422 million for the next four to four and one- half years. Cumulatively it was approximately $6.5 million in debt service avoidance. Member Rindone referred to the seven properties listed on page 7, last column, and questioned if they were the current fair market values. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, responded that it was a current market value. On the first two properties staff felt it was an honest market value. On the Port District properties, they were being appraised by the Port and at their original land use, i.e. parkland, therefore, staff felt they were accurate numbers with that understanding. If the bayfront did move forward it would ultimately be parkland and staff felt that was a good reason to dispose of the properties. On Fuller Ford and Southbay Chevrolet, staff was being conservative as they felt they were worth more than that and the RDA had paid more than that in an up market. Member Rindone stated the Marina Motor Hotel and 965 "F" Street were proposed to be sold to the Port and questioned if that would be feasible within the next twelve months. Mr. Goss felt it would be feasible, but it would take work and cooperation with the Port Director. The Port had put money in their five year CIP to accomplish acquisition and therefore, the money needed to be moved in the coming fiscal year. Member Rindone questioned if there were any environmental concerns on the first property and, if so, if the fair market value reflected it. 2 -/,2- Minutes June 21, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Salomone responded that quite a bit of analysis had been done on the property and staff felt it was an accurate number. Member Rindone questioned access to the property. Mr. Salomone responded that it had not been determined and was an outstanding issue. Access would have to be through an easement through Mr. Barkett's property. Member Rindone questioned if it was a different purchaser, other than the investment fund proposed, if the figures for the three properties would hold. Mr. Salomone responded that if the City went out to the market he did not feel they could get those prices due to the current market. He was concemed that even though the numbers were conservative they would not hold. Member Rindone stated he did not want to get a false sense of security and find that the proposed program would not work. He supported the City Manager's recommendation that the program be reviewed annually which would help to address some of his concems. The other major issue he had concem with was the investment fund and questioned if anyone else was doing it. Mr. Goss responded the City had an investment pool that was currently making investments. The change would be that the investment pool, up to an 8-10% cap, could invest in real property that the City owned and felt had good value. Mr. Salomone stated staff had not conducted an investigation of other agencies or cities regarding those types of transactions. Member Rindone questioned what percentage of the investment fund was used to purchase bonds and assets. Susan Merrill, Interim Finance Administrator, responded that the pool investment varied from between $80 and $90 million. The main percentage was approximately $25 million which was in LAIF. The remainder was in certificates of deposit with other institutions. The main portfolio was very conservative and in line with the City's investment policy. Member Rindone questioned how much of the investment pool was being invested. Ms. Merrill responded that approximately 99% was invested on a daily basis. Member Rindone questioned if staff was proposing to convert any of those investments by converting the non- productive assets and using those funds for the purchase of properties. Ms. Merrill stated staff would be taking a percentage from the investment pool to purchase those assets from the RDA. The investment policy would have to be changed and the City/Agency attorney was looking at the issue. Member Rindone stated he was concemed with the legality of the investment fund concept and requested that staff retum with more information. He questioned if the Agency could adopt a plan to try to see if the first three properties were marketable. Mr. Goss stated the Agency had been presented with a concept on how to work toward balancing the RDA budget and address the deficit. Staff could see if they could get the listed values on the three properties. Member Rindone felt the Agency should review the plan bi-annually for the fist year and then yearly after that. Mr. Goss stated that as the plan was being implemented it would have to be brought back to Council for approval and there would be an opportunity to review the progress of the program. c2 - /3 _w- Minutes June 21, 1994 Page 4 Member Fox expressed his concern regarding the need for a Community Development Specialist II and requested that a review of the department be done several months after the hiring of the Administrative Secretary with an evaluation of how the staffing was working out. MSC (RindonelHorton) to adopt Resolution 1390 and continue Resolutinn 1411 to the meeting nf7/I2/94 and direct staff to provide a legal review of the proposed investment fund and analysis of the first three properties regarding current market value and how close the assessments were. Approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. RESOLUTION 1390 OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Nader absent. 6. RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR-- ITEM #6 IS A REGULAR MEETING ITEM-- The FY 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by Califomia Community Redevelopment Law. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Administration) Resolution 1411 discussed with Item #5. Continued to the 7/12/94 meeting. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(s) - None 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTlS) - None 9. MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11:06 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on July 19, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, \SV LY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: 02 -/'/- AGENDA ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM July 7, 1994 TO: The Honorable Chairman and Memb~ the Redevelopment Agency VIA: John D. Goss, City ManagerJG; ~ /" FROM: Chris Salomone, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Continuation of the 1994-95 Agency Budget to the July 19, 1994 Meeting At its June 21, 1994 meeting, the Agency requested the Agency's 1994-95 Budget be continued to the meeting of July 12, 1994 so staff could provide the following information: . Legal review of the Investment Fund policy regarding real estate acquisition; and . Analysis of three properties to verify market value. As the City Attorney will be out of town the week of July II, 1994 and would not be available should the Agency have questions with respect to the legal review of the Investment Fund, staff is requesting the Agency continue this item to its regular meeting of July 19, 1994. {c:\ WP51 \AGENCYIMEMOS\INF09405.MEMI ..3-/ This ,age ínttntfunnlly lift blank. -3 - .2....