HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02231993 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-1 W.5 of
ontra
FROM:
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
of iS
County
DATE: February 8, 1993
SUBJECT: REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA CONSTITUTING
ONLY BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Concur with the previous staff conclusion that a Redevelopment
Project Area comprised solely of Buchanan Field is not
feasible at this time.
2 . Remove this item as a referral to the Internal Operations
Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On January 26, 1993 the Board of Supervisors referred to the
Internal Operations Committee and Finance Committee the issue of
whether a Redevelopment Project Area comprised solely of Buchanan
Field is feasible at this time.
On February 8, 1993 our Committee met with Jim Kennedy, Deputy
Redevelopment Director, and reviewed the attached report. It is
clear to our Committee that as long as the Redevelopment Agency
cannot capture the additional revenue from the PACE and Sportland
stores it is not financially feasible to consider a Redevelopment
Project Area which includes only the Buchanan Field Airport
property.
We are, therefore, recommending that the Board of Supervisors
concur with the staff position recommended to the Board previously.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: .Y_YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK JEFF SMITH
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 23, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
The Board DEFERRED this matter to March 2 , 1993, and requested a map
of the area being considered.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
—�UNANIMOUS(ABSENT T ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED February 23 , 1903
Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC., Community Development Director
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Jim Kennedy, Deputy Redevelopment Director
Public Works Director n
Manager of Airports j(
Tony Enea, Senior Deputy County Administrator DEPUTY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: February 4, 1993
TO: Internal Operations Committee
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Finance Committee
Supervisor Tom Powers
Supetvi or le Bishop
FROM: Jim;anan
Dept - Redevelopment
i
SUBJECT: f uField Redevelopment Project Area
I. Basis for January 26, 1993 Recommendation
The basis for the staff recommendation of January 26, 1993 (Attachment A) was due to
two interrelated elements - the Redevelopment Plan Adoption scheduling/process, and
resultant financial feasibility. The Redevelopment Plan Adoption process has a "critical
path" schedule and sequence .that can no longer be accomplished in the current fiscal
year. That results in the process having to be restarted in FY 93-94 with a new base
year Assessed Value that includes Parcel A (PACE, Sportland). Therefore, the property
tax increment from Parcel A would not accrue to the Redevelopment Agency.
The estimate of maximum tax increment for a Buchanan Field only Redevelopment
Project is shown on Attachment B. The purchasing power of the gross tax increment
revenue stream is $1.7 million. This value is likely to be lower because of fiscal
agreements, housing set-asides, and administrative costs. An example, with relatively
conservative assumptions, is provided as Table 1. The comparison of the purchasing
power to the contributions of the County and County-controlled agencies is quite close
(Purchasing Power = $742,381; County contributed revenue = $562,700). The proper
policy question to ask is whether the County wouldn't be better off financing the capital
project(s) directly, rather than indirectly via redevelopment (which costs money to
implement, which costs to administer, and which diverts away from capital projects).
TABLE 1
ESTIMATE OF BUCHANAN FIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENTS
(Net Present Value)
Gross Tax Increments $1,712,417
Minus
208 Housing Set-Aside (1) $342,483
Fiscal Agreement Pass-Thru's
Fire District (2) $251,554
Mosquito Abatement (3) $2,312
East Bay Regional Parks (4) $20,292
Supt of Schools (5) $9,076
Mt Diablo Unified Schools (6) $223,778
Sub-Total $507,012
Administration (7) $120,541
Net Tax Increment for Capital Projects $742,381
Footnotes
(1) Mandated by State Law
(2) Board Policy of 1008 pass-thru
(3) 508 pass-thru
(4) 308 pass-thru
(5) 508 pass-thru
(6) 408 pass-thru
(7) 108 of net available tax increment
Internal Operations Committee
Finance Committee
Page 2
II. Costs of Redevelopment Plan Adoption Prior to Abandonment
Attachment C provides the actual costs incurred prior to abandonment. The Agency's
consultants had substantially completed an administrative draft of the EIR, and an
administrative draft of the Preliminary Report prior to abandonment. Both were
necessary prior to initiation of subsequent steps, i.e., community consultation and fiscal
review.
III. Asset Protection
Buchanan Field is an asset that the Board of Supervisors has consistently maintained
should be under the jurisdiction of the County. A Buchanan Field only Redevelopment
Project provides no additional protection because it is in the sphere of influence of one
city. Further, Buchanan Field and the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area are
uninhabited. The County as owner of the property, and majority owner of properties
subject to annexation, should be able to control its own destiny as to whether and on
what terms annexation occurs.
cc: CAO
County Counsel
Director, GMEDA
Director of Community Development
Public Works Director
Airport Manager
File H 1.1(c)
ljk/jb/bfredpa.mem
TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY antra
'
Costa
FROM: Phil Batchelor Cour tv/
Executive Director
DATE: January 26, 1993
SUBJECT: Buchanan Field Redevelopment Project Feasibility Analysis
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACEGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT REPORT on the feasibility of a Redevelopment Project Area
comprised of Buchanan Field; and CONCUR with conclusion that a
Redevelopment Project Area comprised solely of Buchanan Field is not
feasible at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACXGR0VND/REAS0NS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
See attached report.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
_.RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOIDEMATION OF AGENCY COMMITT=.
APPROVE O'H i /
SIGYATURE(S) :
ACTION OF AGZNCY ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: bMNUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Jim Kennedy
646-4076 ATTESTED
trig: Redevelopment Agency PHIL BATCHELOR,
County Administrator AGENCY SECRETARY
County Counsel
G:4EDA
Community Development BY , DEPUT"-
Public Works
Airport Manager
via Redevelopment
- Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council
- Goldfarb & Lipman
:.rrewnr�a.bm
• PZ .� y
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: January 26, 1993
TO: Redevelopment Agency
el—
FROM: Jim K y
Deputy Dire r-Redevelopment
SUBJECT:Buo a; Field Redevelopment Project Area
On December 22, 1992 the Redevelopment Agency Board of Supervisors terminated
the Redevelopment Plan adoption process as it relates to the Pacheco community.
The Agency/Board requested a report on the feasibility of a Redevelopment Project
Area comprised of Buchanan Field only (map attached).
I. CONCLUSION
Two factors were evaluated with respect to this feasibility analysis:
1. Plan adoption schedule;
2. Financial viability/Asset Protection.
The report concludes that the formation of a Redevelopment Project Area comprised
of Buchanan Field only would not generate sufficient tax increment to be financially
viable. In large measure this occurs because the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan
for Buchanan Field would require utilization of the 1993-94 Equalized Tax Roils,
therefore, tax increment from Parcel A (PACE) would not accrue to the Agency.
II. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Two interacting factors must be evaluated to determine the feasibility of a
Redevelopment Project comprised of Buchanan Field alone - Plan adoption schedule
and financial viability.
A. Plan Adoption Schedule
The Redevelopment Plan adoption process takes approximately 12 months from
initiation to adoption. Initiation of the Redevelopment Plan adoption process
begins with the release of the Equalized Tax Roll in August of each year. The
AA
- P3 �7Y
TO: Redevelopment Agency -2- January 26, 1993
RE: Buchanan Field Redevelopment
Project Area
Redevelopment Plan must be adopted prior to release of the subsequent year's
Equalized Tax Roll. The procedural steps required for a Buchanan Field
Redevelopment Plan adoption cannot now be completed prior to the County
releasing its 1993-94 Equalized Tax Roll. Therefore, the Redevelopment Plan
adoption process would have to be restarted in August, 1993.
The 1993-94 Equalized Tax Roll will include the improvement values on Parcel
A at Buchanan Field (PACE, Sportsmart). Since the 1993-94 Ta_x Rolls will be
the base year, the Redevelopment Agency will accrue no property tax
increments from Parcel A. Tax increment potential would be limited to Parcel
B on the west side of the Airport.
B. Financial Viability/Asset Protection
Parcel B permits up to 180,000 square feet of private commercial development.
Depending on the development type, the value of those improvements could
range from approximately $10-15 million (development values of $55-85/foot).
Tax Increment resulting from such development would range from $115,000-
170,000/year. This annual income stream would likely be reduced by Fiscal
Agreement pass-thru's to other taxing entities, and by administrative costs.
Conservatively, 30% of the gross tax increment could be lost to other taxing
entities, decreasing the annual revenue stream to a range of $80,000-120,000.
A viable Redevelopment Program would not be supportable with such revenues.
Furthermore, the Redevelopment Plan adoption expenses would still be an
estimated $150,000.
Buchanan Field is an asset that the Board of Supervisors has consistently
maintained should be under the jurisdiction of the County. Buchanan Field and
the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area are an uninhabited area. The
County as owner of the property, and majority owner of property subject to a
change in political jurisdiction, should be able to control its own destiny as to
whether a change in political jurisdiction is appropriate.
JK:fh
vaWbuchfiel.mem
FIGURE I-2 P Y
AIRPORT LOCATION MAP
BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT ---- SOUNCAIRPORT PROPERTY
BOUNDARY
CONCORD, CA
SCALE
• a t,oaa' .
SOURCE: MCCL:NTOCX. SECXER 3 ASSOCIATES APRIL 1989
7
` NIN' RPORATE7 •''
09
a
c to�
SOLANO
P DR1Y[_/N
CZHTRAL SANITARYS�*<� TH[ATUI
al[TRICT TR[ATL[NT
PLANT O
� y
U¢ yC w�ON V CAP NILLCR[ST PAN[
Z
V
OILLCJIK
[ TANY
c 1 SCHOOL ago.
y Lam" HILL![
Q Niwiii L rI
Q � • O ti l
O ~
CS4La
YI a� a
G:
P
OC Q� IE
Ca = C A W
IA C
W o �
J 6
u /
>'A
_
/ NNAN DfCHOM
a i
[uCNANAN PILO
GOLP COYNa[
PLE. ANT
• 1 A
IV
� Y C
yyy CORD ; W� CONCORD
PARR A ENO.
a
�• � ~
alA[LO VALLEY i MILLOY/
GOLL1:G[ SHpgrzm
e:NT[N
Q
SUM vlLL[T
'
R b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b �O b b b OPi N
w w w w .+ n !
w w w N w N w w ~ N N N N w w N w w N N N N N w N w N N w N w w N N b w
N
p1 n n N n n N N n N N n N N N n n N N N N n n N N n n n N N P m
o N n o ^ o M o » o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 » o M » o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n r
o.�J]. n r r n � r n r r r n ` n ; n n n r n n r n n h r n r r r ; r r r n n • n
` „ ` w w . n ` N N ` ~ N N w M n
fffJJJ N N w N w w N N w N N w N N --
a w N w N N N N w w N
n
_ n n ! • n N ! V V V ! V n + N = n n n N n = n N N : = n n N n •
4 n w n n n n n n n n n n
N N N w w w N N N N w N w w w w w w N N w M w w N M w w w N N N
w
U w N w w N w w w w w w w w N N N N M w M N w N w w N p w w w w w w N w w w N w N'1
M
n n N n n n n n n n N n n n N N n N n n n n n N n N n n n N n n n n n n n n N ! o S
MR YI n n n n n n n N N n N n n n n N n N n N N N N N N ! b
m M N N N w N N w w w N w N N N N N w N N N w w w w N M w w w w N H A P!
w
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b n P
N w w N N N N w N N w N w N M M M w N N w w w N N w N N N ! n 11
w ,
w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n ^
p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m r n C
w w
4' P P P P P P P P P 01 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P n m
m h n h n h n n n n n r r rn n h r n h n r r h n h n r h r n r h n n r n O m
n n n n M n n » M n n n n n � n
M N w w N N w w w w w N w N w w w w N w w M p N N w N w N N w N w N w + n
N
N
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P A P P P P P P m P P P P P P P P P P P P n !
00 b n
$ n n n n n n n » A n n n n n n n n n n n n O m
H = w N w N w w N N w w N w w w w w w w w w w w N w w w w w p N w N w w w w w w
w w
N
M
O
m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m m m m O O n O
r r r n r n n n r r r n n = n r r r r r r n n r r r r r n n n r w P
.Oj • • • • • • ` • • N ` N N N w �+ .i w r1 • N H N r1 ti w w N N N .i b M
n
w
z r - e i - r - - r r i i r b • • • • V V ! r - r .be - b V V • r r r r V r 0 O
C f. M w
w w w w N N w w w w w w N N w N N N w N w w w w N w p w .. w w N N w N w w n M
g � w
e e e o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 o e o e e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
1b. A A M b n V b � ry b ry „ m �O ry b �O ry b ry b b b ry b ry ry b b b b �D M
FOl N n n N N N N n N n n N N n N n n N n N n N N n m
y p' w w .r w w w .i : w : .i w M
w ` `
P
w N w N N M N N N w N !
g
,„7 • n n n h n n n r n n r n r r n r r n n n n n n n r r r n n r r r n n r n n n m + 1�n i. N n n n n n N n n w N
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m m m o m m m o n In
p m m m m m m m m m m m m m o +m m m m m m m m o m o m m m m m m m m m m m m aNl
w w w •i .i .i .i w .i rn N w n Is
w w w N N w w N N N w w w w w N w w w w N w N w N N w w w N
O O0 O O O O O O O ^ ^ O O O O 0O O O O O O O O O O ^ O O O O O O O O n n N C
lz
p7 w M w w N N w w M w M N N w M w ww w w N w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N w n +
w
(.1 w
�.7 M O n o a0 o e O „ e e n e N n e O N o 0 0 o n N n
4 N n M N n N N N n n n n N n
,� w w .!. .•. .•i .•i .+a .•i w .•. w .•. w � .•. w .!. .l.1 w •. .•n .•a w +i w h w
m n w w w :. w N w w w N N w N w N w w w N w w w w w w N N w w N w w w w w w N N .~► - �
p w
Iq n n itli I n n uIf n n n N I � I I I I n I N I I I „ n I I I I I I N n n M N I 1 I
.(Gii N N N n N n N n N N N n N n n n Y1
NV N • • H V � .l.1 w N N .V. A N N � V
N N
N - N w A - w N w - N - N N - N - - w .. - N N - w w - N N N N N
H
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
m O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
WW, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 , 0
a H N .Oi w wOi w w w w .Oi i w .Oi w w .Oi .Oi ti w .Oi NOi w .Oi w w wOi w w w w w ti w w .Oi w
w w w N w w w N N w w N w w w w w w N N N w N w N w N w N N N w w w w w
N b m P O n N b h m P O n n V b m P O n • n b r m P O n n b
o N N N n
w w w N w h N H N N M N H M N N N N H h M N N n N M N n h H h N M N M H h N M y
8
Supplement to Item 1.64
1/26/93 Agenda
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: January 26, 1993
TO: Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jim Kennedy
Deputy..Director-Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Pacheco/u hanan Field Redevelopment Plan Adoption Expenses
In its December 15', 1992 action terminating the Redevelopment Plan Adoption
process as it relates to the Pacheco area, the Agency requested a report on costs
incurred prior to the abandonment of proceedings. Please be advised that the total
cost to abandonment were as follows:
Redevelopment Plan consultants: $ 30,260.95
EIR consultant: 36.078.92
TOTAL: $ 66,339.87
JK:Ih
cc: Fla H3.1 1a)
sraVcosts.mem