HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1997 1217 RDA REGANNOTATED
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1997
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center
1. CALL TO ORDER:
7:45 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL:
ALL AGENCY MEMBERS PRESENT
3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
799 Moorpark Avenue
A. Resolition 97-60-Adopting the 1"lgMentati& Plan Update C for th-
th
-LOA
Moorpark Redevelopment Project Area--,. Staff Recommendation: ope
6 C .the public hearing, accept public testimony, close the public
r1tD ec)�-1''hearing, and adopt Resolution No. 97 -66 adopting the
O � /' ��"Implementation Plan Update for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project
/J Area.
1
"MOVEDIT RESOLUTION 97 -66
5. PRESENTATIONS /ACTION /DISCUSSION:
A. Review of P-roposalit for Ci S „lp , ,Field Pro! ecil_ Staff
Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to "negotiate a
development agreement with Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation for the Gisler Field Housing Project to be submitted
for Agency review and adoption.
APPROVED AS AMENDED
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Consider Approval of HJUUt,C4 Hof the Regular: Meetinc
Redevelopment Aaency on December 3. 1997.;
Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes as processed.
�AFP�VE
Redevelopment Agency Agenda
December 17, 1997
Page 2
10
e�_.i
t S
Funds 2uu, Liu, zzu, Lou, 4UU aria 41u I . Jl d11 Mk'-UU1LUL1(:�11UdL1U11:
Adopt MRA Resolution No. 97 -67, approving certain amendments to
the FY 1997/98 MRA Budget and certain additional appropriations
summarized as follows: 1. Radios: (Account No.
410.504.0000.000.9101): from $500 to $600 ($100 increase).
APPROVED RESOLUTION 97 -67
7. ADJOURNMENT:
8:40 P.M.
ITEM-4 . A.
The Staff Report for this Item was included in the
December 3, 1997 Meeting Packet -
Another copy has not been provided.
000001
7/a (,�A(g)
ITEM 5• A.
MOORPARK. C4LIFOAN1A
CITY OF MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY mane Ca:NCr
AGENDA REPORT
AcnoN: oV
ey
TO: Honorable Agency Board Members — °w
FROM: John E. Nowak, Interim Economic Development Manager <q.,�7 T_' L74
DATE: 10 December 1997 (Agency Meeting December 17, 1997)
IN RE: REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR GISLER FIELD PROJECT
Background: The City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency acquired the property
referred to as Gisler Field in December 1993. A portion of the property was used for
development of Poindexter Park, and a portion was utilized for the Mission Bell Phase II
commercial development. Approximately eight (8) acres of land remains for the
construction of residential housing units, of which a portion is to be units affordable for
families of low and very low income.
The Agency prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of the site in
1996. Four proposals were received and subsequently rejected. In April 1997 a Request
for Proposal was prepared and three firms submitted proposals. One firm was removed
from consideration due to the type of units proposed to meet the low and very low housing
requirements (granny flats). The two remaining proposals have been reviewed in light of
the specifications contained in the April 1997 RFP.
Review: The proposals received and reviewed by staff were submitted by Cabrillo
Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) and by Colmer Development Company
(Colmer) in conjunction with Peoples Self Help Housing. This review addresses salient
conditions contained in the RFP and the extent to which the proposals address them. It
is based on the proposals as submitted on June 17, 1997 and staffs subsequent meetings
with the proposers.
Briefly, CEDC proposes to construct a total of sixty -two (62) detached single family units
of which a total of sixteen (16) would be affordable for low and very low income
households. Colmer proposes to construct forty (40) single family detached units and
twenty -six (26) rental units for seniors. The senior units would be affordable for low and
very low income persons.
The specifications contained in the RFP include the following:
000003
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 02
Single story single family detached units to be constructed along the western
property line.
CEDC: Six (6) single story buildings abutting the western property line, with an
average of fifteen (15') foot rear yard setbacks, are included in the proposal.
The proposal calls for the six units to have ten (10') sideyard setbacks
adjoining the western property line, which are utility easements.
Colmer: Sixteen (16) single story buildings abut the western property line along the
northern 794 feet with twenty (20') foot rear yard setbacks. The southerly
portion of the property has senior housing rental units with approximately
twenty (20') foot setbacks.
Analysis: The CEDC proposal provides for a ten (10') foot setback from the adjoining
properties to the west, which meets Code requirements for sideyard setbacks. The Colmer
proposal meets Code requirements with twenty (20) foot rear yard setbacks. Both provide
for single story structures as required by the RFP.
2. There shall be a north -south 40 -foot wide street abutting the park Developer to
pay one -half the cost of construction
CEDC: The proposal includes sidewalks on both sides of the street. The proposer
proposes to build the street with the Agency reimbursing one -half of the cost,
estimated to be $96,000.
Colmer: The proposal includes the street and sidewalks within a fifty -three (53) foot
right -of -way. The proposer proposes to build the street with the Agency
reimbursing one -half of all costs, estimated to be $96,000, and is requesting
progressive payments from the Agency as the road is being constructed.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirements.
3. Provide approximately twenty (20') feet of landscape setback along Poindexter
Avenue. -
CEDC: A continuous twenty (20') foot landscaped area proposed along Poindexter
Avenue.
oob(3 34
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 03
Colmer: Twenty (20') foot landscaped area with one additional street intersecting
Poindexter Avenue proposed.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement. Please, note that the twenty (20')
foot specification could be reduced if it makes for a better overall project.
4. Provide approximately eight (8') feet of landscape setback along the north -south
street in addition to the right -of -way. This may be modified by the Agency.
CEDC: No additional landscape area was provided on the plans submitted. Nine (9)
sideyard walls would face on the north -south street directly adjacent to the
sidewalk. The proposer has subsequently indicated that the project could
be redesigned to allow for at least a four (4') foot landscape area on the
western side of the street.
Colmer: No additional street landscape area was provided on the plans submitted.
Ten (10) front yards would face on the north -south street directly adjacent
to the sidewalk. The proposer has subsequently indicated that the project
could be redesigned to have a street landscaped areas on the west side of
the street.
Analysis: As modified, both proposals meet the intent of the RFP requirement.
5. Construct a six (6) foot block wall along the west property line to match the wall on
the north and west property line of the commercial development to the south Also
required are block walls on all sides and rear yards abutting a street and along
south, west and north property lines. Commercial developer to build a wall to south
CEDC: Block walls are to be provided as stated in the RFP. The initial proposal
indicated interior lot walls would be wood, but subsequently the proposer
indicated that block walls, or its equivalent, would be constructed.
Colmer: Block walls on west and north are provided as stated in the RFP. Wood
fences were proposed for interior streets. The proposer has subsequently
indicated that block walls, or its equivalent, would be constructed as
requested.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement.
0000WA
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 04
6. Developer to provide a list of amenities with associated costs
CEDC: No additional amenities were proposed that would impact cost.
Colmer: An approximately 1,500 to 2,000- square foot community center is proposed
as part of the senior rental units. It would be available for other residents in
the area. No separate cost breakdown was provided for the center.
Analysis: Only the Colmer proposal contains specified amenities that may benefit the
community.
7. The developer shall provide a range of product type that will make the project
feasible
CEDC: Development includes two (2) floor plans for both the one and two -story
buildings, with one basic elevation each. Minor modifications will be made
to facades. Includes twenty -four (24) 3- bedroom, 2 -bath and thirty -eight (38)
4- bedroom, 2' /z -bath detached single family houses.
Colmer: Development includes three (3) floor plans for both the one and two story
single family buildings, with three elevations each. Includes seventeen (17)
3- bedroom, 2 -bath; ten (10) 4- bedroom, 2-bath and thirteen (13) 4- bedroom,
21/2-bath detached houses. Also, twenty -one (21) one - bedroom cottages
and five (5) two- bedroom cottages are proposed.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement.
8. 17VZT_7=_7TETeTR1 =eiuktr Avenue or from the north-south
CEDC: The submittal complies with the condition.
Colmer: The submitted plan indicates ten (10) homes face and have access from the
north -south street. The proposer has indicated the plan can be redesigned
to eliminate this condition.
Analysis: Both proposals would meet the RFP requirement.
+Uoboo' �
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 05
9. All lots are to meet City requirements, including setbacks unit size and parkin
requirements.
CEDC: Lots are sized from 3,400 sq ft to 4,100 sq ft. As submitted, the plan shows
three (3) foot side yard setbacks which do not meet Code, and which exceed
the discretionary modification given the Council in the Code (a reduction in
setback requirements not to exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the required
setback). Some rear yards are fifteen (16) feet, which do not meet Code
and exceed the discretionary modification given the Council in the Code.
Two car garages are provided. The proposer has indicated the project
would be redesigned to keep all rear yard setbacks within the 20%
discretionary reduction allowed in RPD Zones with a reduction in the
landscape area along Poindexter, however sideyard requirements could not
be met on all units.
Colmer: Lots are sized from 3,800 sq ft to 7,300 sq ft. Five (6) foot side yard
setbacks meet Code. Some front and rear yard setbacks can meet Code
depending on the layout, except for one unit. Two car garages are provided
for the detached units. The senior units are short the required parking
spaces in the Code, but the City may reduce the number based on
justification provided by the proposer.
Analysis: The Colmer proposal meets current planning Code requirements on
setbacks, while requiring approval for a reduction in the senior units' parking. Based on
information from CEDC, there is a possibility that the total number of units would need to
be reduced if the minimum setbacks cannot be met even with the 20% reduction.
10. The Developer will be expected to pay all City fees.
CEDC: The initial proposal was to pay all applicable City fees, but with a cap of
$20,000 per unit. The proposer is also requesting fee payment be delayed
to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for each unit. In lieu of a cap on
all fees, the proposer is willing to accept a lock -in of City fees at the time an
agreement is signed with the City. A cap on Quimby fees of $3,000 was also
discussed as a possibility to maintain affordability. Staff can support this
amount. The proposer also has clarified that the delay of payments would
pertain only to any Quimby, LAAOC and library fees for the low and very low
designed units. Subsequently the proposer has indicated that should the
fees not controlled by the City increase such that the total fees exceeded
000007
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 06
$20,000 per unit, they would like to have the matter available for further
discussion and consideration by the City.
Colmer: The proposer intends to pay all applicable City fees except Quimby fees,
and is requesting that traffic mitigation and LAAOC fees be reduced to 60%
of the total amount for senior units only. The proposal requests that all
assessment district fees be waived. Senior unit fees were estimated at
$11,500 per unit, and the single family homes at $17,300. They also
request payment for the traffic mitigation and LAAOC fees be delayed until
issuance of a building permit for each unit. Subsequently, the proposer has
indicated the request for delay of fee payment would pertain to the senior
units only, and the waiver of Quimby fees would also be only for the senior
units. They later agreed that the Quimby fees for the single family units
would be $3,000 per unit, which staff can support.
Analysis: Both proposals have been modified to where City fees would be paid, but
delayed for some of the units. Some form of cap, particularly on Quimby fees, is also
requested by both proposers. Staff can support the $3,000 per unit Quimby fee if paid
within the next few years. Both have also indicated that some form of an overall limit on
the fees to be paid would be required to assure that affordable units could be provided.
11. Developer shall be required to pay the fees for other agencies
CEDC: Included.
Colmer: Included.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement.
12. Proposer shall provide units affordable to low and moderate income families as
required by California Community Development law Sec. 33413(b) (2) (i.e., 15% of
all units to be affordable. and 40% of those units to be for very low income families)
CEDC: A total of sixty -two (62) units are proposed. Twelve (12) to be available for
low income and four (4) to be available for very low income families (six
more units than are required). Proposer proposes to obtain funding to make
four additional units affordable, although not required.
000008
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 07
Colmer: A total of sixty -six (66) units proposed (forty single family, twenty -six senior).
Thirteen (13) units to be available for low income and thirteen (13) to be
available for very low income families (sixteen more units than required).
If certain tax credits are used, these units would be affordable for 55 years.
(NOTE: Under current criteria, a low income family of four can have a maximum annual
income of $43,500, and a very low income family of four can have a maximum annual
income of $30,550. These figures are likely to be higher when the new income levels are
established for 1998.)
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement of providing affordable units for
low and very low income households. At 62 units, CEDC was required to provide 10
affordable units; and at 66 units, Colmer was also required to provide 10 affordable units.
13. Agency shall receive a $25.000 good faith deposit at the time an agreement is
executed.
CEDC: The proposal requested the amount be reduced to $5,000. That request has
now been withdrawn.
Colmer: The $25,000 would be paid at the start of exclusive negotiations.
Analysis: Both proposals meet the RFP requirement.
There are other issues that are relevant to the Agency's review and consideration in
making a decision on the proposals. These follow:
14. The Aaency indicated a desire for a density of 8 dwelling units per acre
CEDC: Proposal calls for 7.5 dwelling units per acre of single family detached units.
Colmer: Proposal calls for an overall density of 8.0 dwelling units per acre combining
both the single family and the senior units. However, the area which
contains the senior units has a density of approximately 21 dwelling units per
acre.
0OW09
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 08
Analysis: Both proposals meet the general RFP requirement. However, Colmer's
proposal requires a portion of the property (the senior units) to be granted
a bonus density, which is allowed under the Zoning ordinance, up to a
maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre.
15. The proposal is for the proposer to purchase the 8 +/- acres of land from the
Agency for $1,500.000.
CEDC: The proposer proposes that the Agency finance the site acquisition through
a no interest loan, subordinate to construction lender, and receive
repayment as each of the forty -six (46) market priced units are sold, or
$32,609 per unit. The proposer would agree to pay three percent (3 %)
simple interest on the deferred loan, beginning two (2) years after the DDA
is signed, and subject to the following: the City is to approve the tentative
map and planned development permit within six (6) months of the DDA
approval and the final map within one (1) year of the DDA signing. If that
schedule is not met, the interest would not begin until 18 months after the
tentative map and planned development permit are approved, and one year
after the final map is approved by the City. Subsequently, they agreed to
pay the LAW interest rate on the $1.5 million (simple interest) upon signing
a DDA, but with the payment deferred as described above.
Colmer: Proposes that the full amount of $1.5 million be paid within thirty (30) days
of recordation of the final map and RPD.
Analysis: The Colmer proposal would reimburse the Agency for land costs the soonest,
making the funds available for other projects within a year and fulfill the intent of the RFP
requirement. The CEDC proposal spreads repayment over a number of years giving the
Agency fewer immediate funds for other housing projects, but is the equivalent of recovery
of the $1.5 million due to the payment of interest on the unpaid amount.
16. Sale price for the single family homes.
CEDC: The market price homes would be in the price range of $180,000 to
$190,000; the low income homes to be priced from $130,000 to $140,000;
and the very low income homes to be priced from $90,000 to $100,000.
Colmer: The market price homes would be in the price range of $135,000 to
000010'
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 09
$175,000. Rents for the senior units would depend on the program they are
financed under, but would be a limited percentage of income.
Analysis: Both proposals would provide units that are within the price range of
moderate, low and very low income households. For the single family homes, other forms
of assistance may be necessary, which CEDC is proposing to provide through their
organization. Colmer does not provide for the low or very low component within the
detached single family portion of its proposed project. Their entire requirement is met by
the senior component.
17. Affordability must be maintained on designated units until the year 2032
CEDC: No indication was given in the proposal regarding a mechanism to be used
to maintain affordability. The proposer has indicated that the specifics of the
program would be established when the DDA is signed, and that the
monitoring program would meet the requirements of State redevelopment
law.
Colmer: Rent restriction on senior units is proposed as the means of maintaining
affordability.
Analysis: A program to assure that he minimum required number of units affordable for
low and very low income households is critical for the Agency's compliance with State law.
The Colmer proposal provides an easy to implement program. The CEDC has not
indicated its specific program and would need to be carefully reviewed by the Agency and
legal counsel to assure the Agency complies with State law. This can be obtained as part
of the DDA. In either case the Agency would want to be involved in the selection of the
low and very low income participants.
18. Funding assistance being requested from the Agency /Cites
CEDC: The proposal is requesting that the Agency provide a $100,000
predevelopment loan, repaid at time of construction loan closure, but not
required for the project to proceed. Also, a no- interest loan from Agency for
land acquisition was proposed (see #15). The proposer has subsequently
withdrawn the request for the predevelopment loan.
Colmer: The proposal is requesting the Agency provide $200,000 and the City
WWII
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 10
provide $200,000 in CDBG funds for senior unit construction. The proposer
subsequently indicated that these funds could be long -term loans, repaid
when rental income permits. Also, a land cost reduction in -lieu of cash is an
option to cover the senior unit costs.
Analysis: The CEDC proposal does not require any additional cash outlays from the
City or Agency to be able to proceed. The Colmer proposal requires additional cash
assistance through a long -term loan or land price reduction for the project to succeed.
Additional outlays for this project reduce the Agency's options for future housing
assistance activities.
19. Estimated time before construction begins.
CEDC: The proposer estimates approximately 12 months from selection by the
Agency to start of construction, depending on the City's review. A DDA
could be signed within 90 days of selection.
Colmer: The proposer estimates approximately 12 months from selection by Agency
to start of construction.
Analysis: Both proposals anticipate construction to begin in 1999.
In conclusion, following is a summary of the principal differences between the two
proposals the Board members may want to consider:
The CEDC proposal includes all single-family detached units, more within the intent
of the RFP, while the Colmer proposal includes 26 senior rental units.
2. The CEDC proposal requests a lock on fee amounts at the time an agreement is
signed, with a delay in payment of Quimby, LAAOC and library fees for the low and
very low units. The Colmer proposal requests a reduction in traffic and LAAOC fees
and a waiver of Quimby fees for the senior units, as well as a delay in fee payment
for these units. In both cases some fee payments to the City would be delayed, but
the Colmer required fee reductions and waivers.
3. The CEDC proposal requests that payment for the land take place as the units are
sold, with the LAIF rate paid in simple interest after two (2) years on the outstanding
balance owed the Agency. The Colmer proposal includes full payment within 30
000012
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 11
days of recordation of the final map and RPD. The Colmer proposal would
reimburse the Agency for land faster and provide a more immediate opportunity for
the Agency to undertake new housing project. The fee reductions, waivers and
extra funds requested, however, effectively reduce the $1.5 million to about $1
million.
4. The CEDC proposal does not indicate the approach it will use to maintain sixteen
units at an affordable level for low and very low income households, as required by
State law, and wants the determination deferred until the DDA is signed. The
Colmer proposal would maintain the rental units at affordable rents through the
required 30 year period. In order to comply with State law, the Agency must
maintain the designated number of units at affordable prices for at least 30 years
from initial sale /lease.
5. The CEDC proposal does not include a request for additional cash funding from the
Agency. The Colmer proposal requests a total of $400,000 from the Agency and
City to assist in making the senior units affordable, plus fee reductions and waivers
of another $100,000. No additional outlay provides the Agency with more flexibility
in using available funds for other housing related projects
In conclusion, the CEDC proposal is most consistent with the RFP specifications and, with
minor changes, can meet all aspects of the RFP.
Staff recommends that the Agency Board provide direction that a disposition and
development agreement (DDA) be negotiated with Cabrillo Economic Development
Corporation to contain, but not be limited to, the following:
1. A specific time frame for submittal of plans and any other discretionary review
applications for City review, and for construction of street improvements,
landscaping and housing units, with penalty payments for failure to perform.
2. A specific program to maintain a minimum of sixteen (16) units as affordable to low
and very low income households for a period of not less than thirty (30) years, as
required by State law, and with the Agency's participation in selection of the low
and very low income buyers.
3. A land purchase schedule with interest accrual on any unpaid balance from
recordation of the final map and RPD at the LAW interest rate.
00001.3
Gisler Field Project
12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting
Page 12
4. A fee payment schedule for all City owed fees.
5. A requirement that setbacks either meet Code requirements or are within the twenty
percent (20 %) discretionary limits.
Recommendation: The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Board authorize the
Executive Director to negotiate a disposition and development agreement with Cabrillo
Economic Development Corporation for the Gisler Field Housing Project to be submitted
for Agency consideration by April 1, 1998. If negotiations on the terms of the DDA do not
reach resolution within ninety (90) calendar days, staff is to report back to the Agency for
it to decide whether to reject the proposal or to negotiate further.
NOTE: Copies of the proposals from CEDC and from Colmer are available in the Council
Reading File.
Attachments: Proposal layouts
000014
_T
EXI5TIN6 RE5I0ENTIAL PARCEL
W
z
Q
ry
F_
x
W
0
Z
lie,
milli
c
C
�r
GHAPPARAL MIL. 5GHOOL
POINDEXTER PARK
51TE DATA
R\
TYPICAL LOT 51ZE
I- STORY:
4100 5.F.
2- 5TORY:
3400 5.F.
5ETBAGK5
FRONT YARD:
18 FEET
REAR YARD:
15 FEET
510E YARD:
3 FEET
UNIT GOUNT
1- 5TORY:
24
2- 5TORY:
38
TOTAL UNIT GOUNT:
62
o to .o eo ixo
r
510EKALK
1 1 t. t. � t► _
■I I�� � ■I I ■_� Q ■I
�I Its �■ ■I I ■� _ "_ �/
11 j�� iii I ■� Q l
t.
CABRILLO ECOMONIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
A COMMUNITY EGOMONIG DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
SERVING VENTURA COUNTY
tr
t:
t.
Lu
W
--------- - - - - --
-� MOORPARK ESTATE5
1-
W
v
Ln
I I
MAINSTREET
R\
ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS, INC.
40 EA,STKUM S"M. St1I}2 A
Ud�
VlMmm aurom[A 05551
�Q❑
(1155) 552 -2115 ♦ PAZ(555)ea2 -1=
Ul
Y
N�
Q
J
J
COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
P004P a ItIgot AVd
31
L
_ e
I I i
_
to K
kn
tv T-1 d
_ 19 F-.
e
PARK,
A "e*s
IV
OF-
,*1
S�FFE
MMW#j brLt. PEA $A
00001(i
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Kenneth C Gilbert, Director of Public Works )d,
DATE: November 25, 1997 (Council Meeting 12- 17 -97)
�1,4(14o)(A)
ITEM 4 • be
AAUPORNIA
MT AGENCY
MEEMS
OF,
all 10
ACTmON: e
keso . q
BY
SUBJECT: Consider City Council and MRA Resolutions Amending the FY 1997/98
Budgets to Fund Certain Additional Costs for a) Radio Equipment
Service; b) Pedestrian Bridge Easement Acquisition; and, c) Tierra
Rejada Road Right -of -Way Annexation (Watt Property) [Affecting Funds
200, 210, 220, 240, 400 and 4101
DISCUSSION
A. Radio Equipment Service
1. Prior Costs: In FY 1996/97 the County of Ventura charged the City a flat rate of
$1060 for the year for servicing all of the City's radios. The FY 1997/98 Budget
included funding in the Public Works Department for this level of expenditure.
2. Revised Cost: The City has been advised that the FY 1997/98 charges to the City
will be $150 per month ($1,800 / yr.). The City was also advised that these costs
could go up to $240 per month ($2,880 / yr.) next fiscal year.
3. FY 1997198 Increase: The amount of the increase in the cost of radio service for
FY 1997/98 is $740 11,800 - 1060] .
4. Cost Spread: The above mentioned annual cost of $1,800 is spread to City
Departments as follows:
bgt97 -5 (ARJ O' V-i
Number
Annual
Project
of Radios
Percent
Cost
Public Works
12
35%
635
CM OF MOORPAR& CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
Crossing Guards
7
21%
371
of 1591-
Parks
9
26%
476
AC, 'ON: GI
Transit
1
3%
53
_
Qesp . 4 _ i y r 9
Code Enforcement
3
9%
159
BT. (V. P6 pe
MRA
2
6%
106
Total
34
100%
1,800
bgt97 -5 (ARJ O' V-i
Budget Amendment
Radios, Etc.
December 17, 1997
Page 2
5. Budget Amendment: As stated above, in past years all radio service costs have
been charged to the Public Works Department. It is recommended that FY
1997/98 radio service costs be spread to all using departments in the manner
described above. However, in order to accomplish this "spread ", it will be
necessary to amend the FY 1997/98 Budget. The recommended Budget
amendment is summarized as follows:
Note a: This line item reduced to reflect an overall budget increase equal to the amount of
the increase in radio service costs.
b: Additional radio costs can be absorbed into existing Budget. No Budget increase is
necessary.
B. Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge: Easement Acquisition
As you know, the City has initiated a condemnation action against the Southern
California Edison Company (SCE) to acquire an easement across their property to
provide access between the Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge and the Arroyo Vista
Community Park. Costs incurred last fiscal year for legal fees, appraisal costs, the
price offer deposited with the Court and other related costs were $34,657. At the time
the FY 1997/98 Budget was prepared, the final cost related to the acquisition of the
easement was unknown. Thus no funds were provided in the FY 1997/98 Budget for
these expenses.
Costs incurred in FY 1997/98 to date for legal costs and related expenses are
approximately $2,737. It is recommended that funds be appropriated for these past
costs, as well as a contingency amount for anticipated future costs, in the amount of
$30,000.
bgt97 -5 O U OZ Q
Current
Revised
Account
FY 1997/98
FY 1997/98
Project
Number
Bud et
Change Note
Budget
Public Works
240.801.0000.000.9101
6,000
(460) a
5,540
Crossing Guards
200.802.0000.000.9101
450
400
850
Parks
210.710.0000.000.9101
181165
500
181665
Transit
204.203.0000.000.9101
800
0 b
800
Code Enf.
220.600.0000.000.9101
0
200
200
640
NRA
410.504.0000.000.9101
500
100
600
Total City & NRA:
740
Note a: This line item reduced to reflect an overall budget increase equal to the amount of
the increase in radio service costs.
b: Additional radio costs can be absorbed into existing Budget. No Budget increase is
necessary.
B. Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge: Easement Acquisition
As you know, the City has initiated a condemnation action against the Southern
California Edison Company (SCE) to acquire an easement across their property to
provide access between the Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge and the Arroyo Vista
Community Park. Costs incurred last fiscal year for legal fees, appraisal costs, the
price offer deposited with the Court and other related costs were $34,657. At the time
the FY 1997/98 Budget was prepared, the final cost related to the acquisition of the
easement was unknown. Thus no funds were provided in the FY 1997/98 Budget for
these expenses.
Costs incurred in FY 1997/98 to date for legal costs and related expenses are
approximately $2,737. It is recommended that funds be appropriated for these past
costs, as well as a contingency amount for anticipated future costs, in the amount of
$30,000.
bgt97 -5 O U OZ Q
Budget Amendment
Radios, Etc.
December 17, 1997
Page 3
C. Tierra Rejada Road Right -of -Way Annexation (Watt Property)
In 1993 the City completed a project to widen Tierra Rejada Road between Spring Road
and the freeway. In the years prior to that accomplishment, the project design was
prepared and certain street rights -of -way were acquired from the property on the south
side of the street, known as the Watt property.
The City boundary in this area is the south right -of -way line of Tierra Rejada Road
prior to the street widening project. The street rights -of -way acquired on the south side
of the street from the Watt property were and are south of the current City boundary.
It is necessary to annex that now City owned property to the City.
Although the full cost to prepare and process the documents necessary to effect this
annexation are not known at this time, it is anticipated that such costs should not exceed
$5,000. It is recommended that only $3,000 be appropriated for this project at this
time. The recommended funding source for these expenses is the Spring Road / Tierra
Rejada Road AOC. Project Code 8057 has been assigned to properly account for these
expenses.
RECOMMENDATION (Roll Call YQW
City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 97- approving certain amendments to the FY
1997/98 Budget and certain additional appropriations summarized as follows:
1. Radios:
a) Public Works [Account No. 240.801.0000.000.91011: from $6,000 to $5,540
($460 decrease);
b) Crossing Guards [Account No. 200.802.0000.000.91011: from $450 to $850
($400 increase);
c) Parks Maintenance [Account No. 210.710.0000.000.9101]: from $18,165 to
$18,665 ($500 increase); and,
d) Code Enforcement [Account No. 220.600.0000.000.91011: from $0 to $200
($200 increase);
2. Arroyo Vista Park Access Bridge (Right -of -Way): (Account No.:
400.801.8002.803.9901): from $0 to $30,000 ($30,000 increase).
3. Tierra Rejada Road Widening (Right -of -Way): (Account No.:
400.801.8057.803.9901): from $0 to $3,000 ($3,000 increase).
Moorpark Redevelopment Agency: Adopt MRA Resolution No. 97- approving certain
amendments to the FY 1997/98 MRA Budget and certain additional appropriations
summarized as follows: 1. Radios [Account No.: 410.504.0000.000.9101]: from $500 to
$600 ($100 increase).
bgt97 -5 00C 021L
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 1997 /98 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THE FOLLOWING
FUNDS: 200, 210, 220 , 240 and 400
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1997, the City Council adopted the Budget for Fiscal
Year 1997/98; and,
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the City Council requesting
an amendment to the budget to fund certain additional unforseen costs; and,
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, describes
said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line item(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment for an aggregate increased amount of
$33,640, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1997.
ATTESTED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Moorpark, California
Resolution No. 97 -
Exhibit "A" (Page 1 of 2)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BY ACCOUNT NUMBER
DEPARTMENT/
ACCOUNT
CURRENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
REVISED
LINE ITEM
NUMBER
APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION
APPROPRIATION
SPRING ROAD /
211.900.8002.000.9801
33.3%
/ (REDUCTION)
$10,000
RADIOS
Public Works
240.801.0000.000.9101
6,000
(460)
5,540
Repair & Maint
211.901.8002.000.9801
66.6%
$20,000
Crossing Grds
200.802.0000.000.9101
$450
$400
$850
Repair & Maint
TOTALS:
1 100X
1 $30,000
Parks
210.710.0000.000.9101
$18,165
$500
$18,665
Repair & Maint
Code Enfmnt
220.600.0000.000.9101
0
$200
$200
Repair & Maint
Sub -Total
24,615
640
25,255
PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE
Right -of -Way
400.801.8002.803.9901
$0
$30,000
$30,000
Acquisition
TIERRA REJADA
ROAD WIDENING
Right -of -Way
400.801.8057.803.9901
$0
$3,000
$3,000
Acquisition
L - -
TOTALS:
$24,615
$33,640
$58,255
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FUNDING SOURCES
FUND
ACCOUNT
PERCENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
NUMBER
SPREAD
APPROPRIATION
SPRING ROAD /
211.900.8002.000.9801
33.3%
$10,000
TIERRA REJADA
ROAD AOC
LOS ANGELES
211.901.8002.000.9801
66.6%
$20,000
1AVENUE AOC
TOTALS:
1 100X
1 $30,000
00U)02411�:i
Resolution No. 97 -
Exhibit "A" (Page 2 of 2)
SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) BY FUND
[Capital Projects Only]
FUND /
ACCOUNT NUMBER
CURRENT
SUPPLEMENTAL
REVISED
PROJECT
TRANSFER
TRANSFERS
TRANSFERS
IN / (OUT)
IN / (OUT)
IN / (OUT)
Spring Rd /
T. R. Rd. AOC
Tierra Rejada
211.900.8057.000.9801
$0
($3,000)
(3,000)
Rd Widening
AVCP Access
211.900.8002.000.9801
($6,000)
($10,000)
$(16,000)
Bride
Sub -total
$(6,000)
$(13,000)
$(19,000)
L. A. Ave AOC
AVCP Access
211.901.8002.000.9801
($12,000)
$(20,000)
$(32,000)
Bridge
Total Transferred Out
$(18,000)
$(33,000)
$(51,000)
Capital Impr
400.801.8057.000.3992
0
$3,000
$3,000
Fund
400.801.8002.000.3992
$18,000
$30,000
$48,000
Sub -total
400
$18,000
$33,000
$51,000
NET TRANSFERS
$0
$0
$0
(Should be $0)
00,044
RESOLUTION NO. 97 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 1997198 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR
THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND
(FUND 410)
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted the MRA
Budget for Fiscal Year 1997/98; and,
WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the MRA requesting additional funds for
radio service costs; and,
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part hereof, describes said budget
amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line item(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That a Budget amendment for an aggregate increased amount of $500 as
more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1997.
Chairman, Moorpark Redevelopment Agency
ATTESTED:
Secretary
V00VZV