Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1996/02/06 (2) MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT WORKSESSION/MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, February 6, 1996 Council Conference Room 8:14 p.m. City Hall Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Hotton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None Submitted. BUSINESS Chns Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated staff would be presenting status reports and requested Member input. The items included a mid-year budget report; analysis of funding level for econon~c development; and 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program. He recommended reviewing the CIP program as it was the most complex. 3.A. 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 PRI68, (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 evaluated in light of budget constraints. As a result, staff recommends all prQjeets 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 Vnte Required) B. RESOLUTION 1483 (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 REDEVELOPSlENT 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) Mr. Salomone used transparencies which showed the methodology utilized in the CIP, the results obtained, and the status of CIP projects with RDA funding. It was determined that they should limit the use of tax increment revenues in every case they could, therefore, they developed alternative funding sources fur the projects. $1.6 million in projects were eliminated from the CIP. i,A i m~ tes Fcbiuary 6, 1996 Pa,dc 2 Member Padilia questioned if the 5-year CiP was adopted every 5 years and amended annually. Mr. Goss stated the 5-year C1P was a planning tool, but items were added or amended each year upon approval by the Agency. Mr. Salomone stated items in the staff report were segregated into the various redevelopment areas they originated Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Fund 995 · Demnlitlon San Diegn Shipbuilding - staff recommended Parking Fund Repayment. In Town Centre I the Agency from 1974 to the present aggressively addressed the parking projects. The Agency fronted the money for acquaring the land and doing the capital improvement, but had never sought repayment from the Parking Fund. Staff limit it was a legitimate payback to the Agency. The parking in the downtown area was adequate and parking studies indicated that the lots were under utilized. Merebelt Rindone stated he was looking for the nexus of using alternative funding with the project. Mr. Goss responded the Agency had advanced money to get the parking projects done in advance of when they could have been done utilizing the Parking Meter Fund. It was a repayment from the Parking Fund to the Agency. Member Rindone stated it was illegal to spend RDA funds outside of redevelopmerit areas. In 1974 there was a commitment to the downtown business area that those funds would go for projects in that area. If the parking was adequate there could be other projects, i.e. alternative items to attract pet~ple to the downtown area, a gateway sign to the downtown area, etc. Mr. Goss stated the RDA money was not necessarily raised in the downtown area. The tax increment from the entire downtown area became the general fund for the RDA. Parn Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist, stated the RDA put in $1.7 million dollars into the parking lots in the downtown area. The RDA was asking to have the Parking Fund repay the monies the RDA put Member Padilia requested that staff characterize the Parking Meter Fund. Robert Powell, Director of Finance, stated it was a special revenue fund that stemmed from the parking district set up downtown. A parking district was required before parking meters could be put in. The revenues were to be used for improvements in the downtown area. Member Padilia questioned if the Parking Meter Fund was reimbursing the RDA for an advance they gave to the Parking Meier Fund and the advance came from improvements that were generally made in the Town Centre I area. Mr. Powell replied that was correct, it would be the first year of a multi-year payback of the Agency funds that wer~ spent in the downtown parking district to facilitate the early development of the parking lots. · Memorial Park Phase II - the $21,572 only reflected the RDA's peaion as the project was larger. Staff recommended PAD Funds. · Town Centre I Parking Structure Repair - the prnject was complete and there was a savings of $9,810. Funding sources were the Parking Fund and the Fine Arts Fund (loan). Mr. Salomone stated the Fine Arts Fund had $283,000 and the loan was $45,000 which was 1% of RDA projects set aside, i.e. 1/2% from the developer and 1/2% from the RDA to be used for fine arts. The money would be loaned to complete the project and it would be repaid out of next years payment from the parking fund. Member Rindone questioned if interest would be included in the repayment. Minutes February 6, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Salomone responded that the payment of interest was a legal requirement. · Rohr Public Improvements - alternate funding was a repayment from the Parking Fund. There was a $50,000 reimbursement for a sewer monitoring facility and the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve was an appropriate fund to fund the sewer monitoring facility. Member Rindone que~stioned the deferral of $98,388. Ms. Buchan stated staff recommended a deferral because on the $301,000 that had to be paid back on the contract, the RDA had agreed in the Owner Participation Agreement to pay a portion of the traffic signal fee, i.e. $98,000. At the present time there was no warrant for the signal at Bay Boulevard/Lagoon Drive. Therefore, staff felt they could deti~r the $98,000 until the signal was warranted. Mr. Salomone stated if the Bayfront developed, the developer could be part of a reimbursement district and that developer would have to pay for the signal instead of the RDA. ® Church/Center Parking Lot - the project was completed and no alternative funding was necessary. Member Rindone questioned the $53,048 that was cancelled. Ms. Buchan responded that it was money that was not spent, i.e. a balance left. Money was not appropriated; as the project progressed the project drew down tax increment. · Geographic Information System - the $21,000 was the Town Centre redevelopmerit projects portion of the GIS system. There was an existing contract and $11,000 needed to be paid during the present fiscal year. The $10,000 could be deterred to future years. Staff recommended Parking Fund repayment/i>r the $11,000. · Panhandle Park (landscaping project) - at the present time staff did not feel it was a high priority project. After preliminary planning it was determined that costs would be much higher than the proposal. Staff felt it needed to be reevaluated before bringing it back to the Agency. · Marina Parkway Freeway Signs - the project included 13-14 signs north and south on I-5 in the 'J~ Street area. Freeway signs were extremely expensive and the project was over $300,000. The contract with Calltans had expired and staff proposed Port CIP funding because it benefited the properties within the Port District rather than properties within the City. · Installation of Monument Signs {Banner) - one set of banners had been set up, but staff recommended that the program be revisited in conjunction with other things being done downtown for on-going redevelopment. Staff recommended that the project be deferred. · City Entry Signs - there was a problem with Caltrans right-of-way and what could be done and the $24,000 was an unreasonably low figure. Staff recommended that the project be cancelled. Member Rindone felt there was still interest by the present Council and possibly future councils in the project in order to enhance the inmge of the City. Mr. Goss felt it should be brought back and redefined because it was prior tn the present Council. ® MTDB Right-of-Way Landscape Improvements - the Landscape Architect was reevaluating the entire project to see if the project could be phased, On 12/5/96 Council approved the ISTEA proposal of $400,000 for the first phase. Of that, the City would have to put up 20% and the additional monies would be requested from ISTEA monies. The $81,000 would be the Agency's money and the balance of $109,000 would be deferred to a future CIP. Staff recommended the MTDB Billboard Fund for the $81,000. There was currently $102,000 in the fund and it could be utilized for landscaping. Member Rindone stated it was his understanding that the project would be brought back to Council. M irxut=s Fchr~ar? 6, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Buchan replied that the Planning staff was working on it. Mr. Goss stated the original project was from the northern to southern borders. The first phase was to start around the "E" Street trolley station and would mainly focus on the right-of-way on either side of public streets that crossed the tracks. The RDA would be deleted from the project and the City would utilize the MTDB Billboard Fund and 1STEA money for the match to start the first phase. · Contingencies - it was originally a $20,000 fund to provide contingency funding for other CIP projects or needs. Staff recommended that the project be cancelled. Mr. Goss stated there was no need for a contingency fund as a separate project. · Telegraph Canyon Flood Control - the original project was $310,000 for the RDA portion of the project. During the project some of the survey markers were destroyed and needed to be replaced. The $25,000 was to do that ,,~ork. There was some funding, between $25,000-$75,000 that could be reimbursed from the project as a whole. The Agency pre-paid an amount of money and the Corp did the project, therefore, there could be rem~bursements back. Staff recommended that the reimbursement be used to pay the $25,000. · Marina View Park - the prqject was complete with a $25,033 unexpended fund balance. Otay Valley Redevelopmeat Fund 996 · Auto Park - the amount retained would cover the mitigation of the environmental testing and demolitiou of the Fuller Ford site. Staff recommended that it be paid out of the proceeds of the sale to the Business Homes developer. ® Otay Valley Road Widening (Pfutse 11) - alternate funding would be from the TransNet Funds which would be an appropriate use of those funds. Animal Shelter - the project was completexl and the $2,824 was the balance of unexpended funds. ® G~_~graphic lnt'onnation Systems - alternate funding would be from the Fine Art Fund (loan). n Acquisition Shinohara - the project was completed with a $6,764 unexpended fund balance. Town Centre I1 Fund 997 ® Automated Budget Systems - the $10,758 was the RDA portion and staff recommended aRemate funding from the Fine Arts Fund (loan). · Puint Pit Removal - the item went before the RDA in October and it was recommended that a loan from the General Fund be made in the amount of $111,556. · l'aint Pit Prudential Overall - the project was completed with an unexpended balance of $5,322. Member Rindone questioned il' actual money was appropriated for the projects. Ms. Buchan responded that an appropriation was made and as the prqject needed the money tax increment money went into the account. The project was approved and budgeted, but in the case of the unexpended balances the money was never there. Low/Ml~derate Housing Fund 998 Stall recommended that the Legislative Office Building/Community Development M{xli~cations and Rancho Del Rey SPA Ill Afibrdable Housing be retained because the money was in the Iow/mod income fund. The Mobilehome Space Rent was funding donated by the mobilehome park owners. Mim:~oa February 6, 1996 Page 5 Member Rindone questioned why RDA funds would be utilized for Rancho Del Rey SPA 111 Affordable Housing. Dave Gustarson, Deputy Director of Community Development, replied that there was a 20% set aside for low/moderate income housing. RDA low/moderate income housing funds had been obligated to assist the project on the condition that they receive a tax credit award. If they did not receive the tax credit award the RDA would take the money back. The money had been obligated but not extended. Mr. Salomone stated the funds could be used anywhere in the City to create low/rood income housing. ® Sweetwater Mobilehome Park - staff recommended cancellation of the project as the project was prohibitively expensive. Staff had developed alternatives to deal with the displacement problem, i.e. when the Agency assisted a low/mod project the Agency required in the regulatory agreement that people displaced from mobilehome parks receive priority for the units. It was staffs observation that conversion of existing mobilehome parks was not happening in the current economy. Member Rindone stated if the market changed, if the motivation changed, the Agency could revisit the issue in the future. Member Alevy questioned if money was set aside to purchase property. Mr. Gustalton responded that it was set aside to develop the mobilehome park, i.e. improvements and to purchase coaches. Member Rindone stated he had been the most critical regarding the RDA, but he was very pleased with the report and the arduous eflbrt staff had put forth in cleaning out the accounts and prioritizing the projects. He recommended that staff remove the four loans from the alternative funding sources. It was an alternative funding source, but they would be paid back. The net effect would be the same and would enhance the accountability and understanding. He recommended that such a procedure be utilized annually to review the CIP. Member Padilia stated the issues had never been easy for him and was difficult to comprehend. In light of last year's mid-year budget report and discussions held he felt staff had gone a long way in clarifying the CIP. He recognized the amount of work that it took and felt they were moving in the right direction. He commended staff for taking action to correct some of the problems. MSUC (Moot/Rindone) to approve Resolutions 18195 and 1483. Member Rindone stated he seconded the motion on the condition that the four loans be separated from the alternative funding. 4.A REPORT OF FINDINGS RELATIVE TO TItE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR TIlE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FROM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCREMENT REVENUE--As part of the Mid-Year Budgel 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. RESOLUTION 1484 AND RESOLUTION 18196 ESTABLISHING THE FUNDING LEVEL FROM REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AT 31.63 PERCENT FOR THE C1TY'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 Fehluary 6~ 1996 Page 6 Mr. Salomone stated the item was a result of a legal issue, AB 1290, versus a fiscal issue. Staff recommended a criteria that they felt would develop a basis for the dollar amount that was spent for econon',ic development outside of the redevelopment areas in previous years and, henceforth, pending an annual review, a rational for what amount of the Agency money should be spent on economic development. Staff had done that based on a pro-rata share based on zoning in the General Plan of industrial and commercial zones in the Agency project areas as compared to that type of zoning outside. The proposal would adjust the amount funded for the present year for economic development down by over $200,000 which would have to be picked up by the General Fund. The balance of $203,000 was appropriate to be funded by the Agency. In looking at prior years funding, it was determined that approximately $1,162,000 should have been an obligation of the General Fund and staff recommended that it be a paper process to forgive money the Agency owed the General Fund in order to clear the books on prior years. Staff also recommended an annual monitoring on a program by program basis as well as the annual budget process. Member Padilia felt the items remaining on the agenda were important and controversial issues that warranted the time tbr lengthy discussion. He questioned if the items could be continued for 1-2 weeks to allow adequate time for review. Chair/Mayor Horton agreed to the continuance. Mr. Salomone stated Rohr had requested action on item 6A. MSUC (Padilla/Hortnn) to continue items 4 and 5 to a future date. 5. 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) MSUC (Padilla/Horton) tn continue items 4 and 5 to a future date. 6.A. RESOLUTION 1485 AUTHORIZING (1) REIMBURSEMENT OF $271,112 TO ROHR, INC. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BF/OP #3, (2) DEFERRAL OF PAYSlENT OF $98,388 TO THE CITY TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND (3) RETENTION OF $30,000 OF REIMBURSEMENT UNTIL SE~,VER MONITORING FACILITY ODOR PROBLEM 1S 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--In accordance with Owner Participation Agreement BF/OP#3 betv,,cen the Agency and Rohr, Inc. for construction of a 245,000 square foot industrial office building, certain costs ti. lr public improvements installed by Rohr were eligib]e for reimbursement. Rohr has completed the required pre- requisites/br two of the three reimbursements and has rextuested the Agency agree to a modified reimbursement schedule for the third item. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) B. RESOLUTION 18197 {1) APPROPRIATING $87,112 FROM FEND 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RD220 - ROHR REIMBURSEMENT (4/Stks Vote Required) Mr. Salomone informed the Agency/Council that Item 6A was a clean-up action of an Owner Participation Agreement with Rohr for development of their corporate headquarters, The RDA was to reimburse Rohr for public improvements beyond the scope of the project. The staff report itemized the expenses Rohr paid for in advance , ,, and a holding appropriation tbr one outstanding item, i.e. a sewer problem in which Rohr agreed to let the RDA retain a portion of their money to fix the problem to the ~tisfaction of the Public Works Director, and forgave their Minutes February 6, 1996 Page 7 art requirement until they built Phase II, or a year specific 2000. Staff was satisfied that the proposed action would complete the C1P. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to approve Resolutions 1485 and 18197. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 8. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORTIS) - None 9. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COM/%~ENTS Member Rindone Member Rindone requested that staff schedule a workshop soon so the items did not linger. AD,|OURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:25 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopmerit Agency Meeting on February 20, 1996 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, by: Vicki C. Soderquist, C~__~uty City Clerk