HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01291985 - FC.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Finance Committee Contra
Costa
DATE: January 28, 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
RECOMMENDATON .
Consider action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
Aj Historical Summary
Capsule, Inc., a plastic thermoforming firm, has outgrown its existing facilities at 999
Bancroft Road, in the Concord area. The firm established certain criteria in its search
for another location, including:
1. Lot Size - 5-6 acres
2. Building - up to 120,000 square feet of manufacturing and offices in two 60,000
square foot phases.
3. Site - controlled industrial park location with protective design and land use CC
& R's.
4. Environmental Quality - away from "smokestack" industries.
5. Quality of Life - community with affordable housin .
6. Price of Land - improved industrial land at $1.90 - 2.50/square foot.
Capsule, Inc. could not locate a site in the County that met all of its criteria. The
primary factor that could not be met was land costs - improved industrial park land in
the County ranged from $4.50/square foot in Antioch to $5.00-$6.00/square foot in
West County. Less expensive land in East County was not yet ready for development
as a business decision the firm desires to relocate to Fairfield where each of their
criteria is met, and, in addition, the City has offered industrial development bond
financing. California state law governing industrial development bond financing does
not allow, in most cases, for the financing to be used if its use would result in the
relocation of a,firm from one area of the State to another. The State could make it's
required determination if the locality losing the firm states that no suitable sites are
available, or the locality does not oppose the relocation. Capsule, Inc. has requested
that the County provide a letter stating that no suitable sites meeting their criteria
exist in the County.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI OF MITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) C(4`(
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 29, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
DEFERRED action to February 5, 1985.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Finance Committee ATTESTED
Planning Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7.83 le BY DEPUTY
B) Issues
1. Would endorsing the relocation run counter to previously stated Board policy that
the County facilitate further economic development, and "take an active role in
enhancing and retaining present manufacturing industries" (Report of the
Economic Development Task Force, p. 20)?
2. Capsule, Inc. would not need the County's approval to move if it were not
contemplating the use of industrial development bond financing, therefore is any
action on the part of the County needed to complete what could be an entirely
"business transation", i.e., financing the move with private financing rather than
financing with a public subsidy?
3. Capsule, Inc. has stated they considered moving to Texas. Since a provision of
applicable State law is that approval may be provided, even where intra-state
relocations result, if the firm would otherwise leave the State, does the County
have to state anything for the record? Alternatively, could the County wait
until the State has considered the matter in view of the potential out-of-state
relocation?
4. Since the primary consideration is economic, is it appropriate for the County to
consider developing a financial package which would make sites in the County
more competitive?
Page 2