Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01221985 - 2.3 c • BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Anthony A. Dehaesus �S♦a � t DATE: January 15, 1985 County SUBJECT: Request by Capsule, Inc. for a letter from the County indicating that the County was not successful in locating a site for Capsule's relocation. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Decline to provide letter as requested by Capsule, Inc.; and instruct the Director of Planning to continue to coordinate efforts to find a suitable site for the firm in the County. BACKGROUND: (A) Initial Contact Capsule, Inc., a plastic thermoforming firm which has been located in Contra Costa County since 1970, has outgrown its existing facilities, at 999 Bancroft Road in the Pleasant Hill area. Representatives of Capsule have indicated they have been conducting a site search effort for eighteen months. They have evaluated various sites within the County, elsewhere in the Bay Area, and out of State. Approximately nine months ago (March, 1984) a real estate agent representing an anonymous firm (Capsule, Inc.) approached my staff and requested assistance in identifying sites in the County which might prove suitable for relocation of the firm. A number of potential locations were discussed both within the unicorporated County and in.various cities. Information and an indication to explore the feasibility of industrial development bond financing was also discussed. Based on the information provided, the agent for Capsule conducted further evaluation of sites. There was no. further contact with the agent until late December, 1984 when the agent approached the Planning Director requesting that a letter be provided to the firm, now identified as Capsule, Inc.,.outlining our site search assistance provided. Upon inquiry from my staff, the agent indicated that the firm wanted to relocate to Fairfield, and that they were contemplating financing the purchase and construction of new facilities through an issuance of industrial development bonds. (B) Piracy provisions of the California Industrial Development Financing Act Section 91531 of the California Government Code requires that the California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission . (CIDFAC) make certain determinations prior to providing their required approval of any industrial development bond financing completed in the State. Among the findings is the so called "Piracy Provision", which reads as follows: Neither the completion of the project nor the operation f the facilities will have the proximate effect of relocation f any substantial operations of. the company from onerea of the tate to another or in the abandonment of any substanti operati of the CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REG M NDA IONJ BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES) ACTION OF BOARD ON IJ January APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER `1 REQUESTED Director of Planning to continue to co.ordinate efforts to find a suitable site in Contra Costa County for relocation of Capsule, Inc . , and REFERRED matter to Finance Committee for review at its meeting on January 23, 1915. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS XX UNANIMOUS (ASSENT II , IV ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN A13SENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Finance Committee ATTESTED January 22, 1985 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Director Of Planning SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Page 2 company within other areas of the state, or, if the completion or operation will have either of the effects, then the completion and operation is reasonably necessary to prevent the relocation of any substantial operations of the company from an area within the state to an area outside the state. CIDFAC has adopted the following guidelines with respect to relocations: 1. a. All applicants are required to provide documentation in their applications of their efforts to work with the community before abandoning the facility in that community. b. Applicants must give the community to be abandoned timely notice of their intention to relocate. c. The consultant to the Commission will not recommend approval of applications involving a relocation unless: (i) the application contains written documentation that the community being abandoned was contacted by the applicant in sufficient time for the community to have assisted the applicant in finding a site suitable for its operations; and (ii) after having been contacted, the community being abandoned indicates in writing that no suitable site is available, or that the community has no objection to the relocation. 2. Relocation within the same community should be allowed. With respect to the guidelines, it is my view that notification of intent to relocate was provided by Capsule, Inc. on January 4, 1985. It was at a meeting on that date that the principals of Capsule initially described, in reasonable detail, their site criteria. Prior to this date the site criteria were vague and, in fact, prior to late December the County did not know with whom they were ultimately dealing. If an application to CIDFAC were pursued at this time it is not clear whether CIDFAC would make the necessary finding. Capsule could provide their own documentation of the site search effort they conducted, including the limited and anonymous contact with the County, or Capsule could represent that their other option is relocating out of State. If CIDFAC were to concur with either of these representations, it could approve the financing by Fairfield. (C) Current Site Search Effort Based on the January 4, 1985 meeting (which was attended by the President of Capsle, Inc. - Terence Stauber - and by the firms Vice-President and Controller, Operations Manager, and by their real estate agent, as well as Paul Hughey of the Contra Costa Development Association, Art Miner from PIC, Virginia Crawford from Supervisor McPeak's staff, and Jim Kennedy from my staff) we are now clear on Capsule's site criteria. (Attachment A) The Development Association and my staff are coordinating efforts with cities and property owners in the site search effort. While we are attempting to react very quickly, it is unlikely that such an effort can be concluded by a January 24 deadline established by Capsule (the firm's option on the Fairfield site expires on that date). This is acknowledged by all parties, however the urgency is compelling a quick response. To date we have identified prospective sites for Capsule's consideration in Richmond, Hercules, Martinez, Concord, West Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood. The two criteria which create problems are the land cost considerations and environmental considerations, i.e., away from petrochemical plant. While it may be a challange, we feel confident that a location reasonably close to Capsule's site criteria can be identified. It is also clear from our discussions that Capsule would prefer to stay in the County where it has developed corporate and personal roots. JK/mq1 cc: Capsule, Inc. County Counsel PIC Supv. McPeak Supv. Torlakson