Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1998 0304 RDA REGSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss CITY OF MOO RP ARK ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Lisa Pope, declare as follows: That I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark and that a notice for a regular meeting of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency to be held March 4, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, was posted on February 27, 1998, at a conspicuous place at the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark A venue, Moorpark, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 27, 1998. l /a. ('a(I ) ITEM I * A 6 P CALIFORNIA LP NT AGENCY IEET i OF ;GL 1Nii IGT101k Reso cc ton Q 923"69' MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Agency FROM: Nancy Burns, Senior Management Anal DATE: February 21, 1998 ( Meeting of March 4, 998) SUBJECT: Consider Authorizing $37,500 in Tax Increment Set -Aside Funds for Matching Requirements for Use of HOME Funds for Down Payment Assistance for Low Income First Time Home Buyers for Fiscal Year 1998/99 At its Regular Meeting of January 21, 1998, the Moorpark City Council authorized application for HOME funds in the amount of 112,500, to be used as Down Payment Assistance for Low Income First Time Home Buyers. At that time, Council also authorized a request for $37,500 from the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency for the required matching funds, if the application for HOME funds is successful. Discussion The HOME Investment Partnerships program requires a 25% match from the City for approved HOME funds. At its January 21, 1998, meeting, Council authorized that, if the application for HOME funds is successful, the 25° match be calculated first from a sweat equity program, if such a program becomes available in the City. Otherwise, Council determined to request the match be funded. by Tax Increment Set -Aside funds from the Redevelopment Agency. In order to present the strongest position for the City's application for HOME funds to be used for Down Payment Assistance, staff recommends the authorization of matching funds be made at this time. 14ANLH \A!,NDARPT \HOME DP ASSISTANCE RESO TRS E- 2 /21 /9II © ©- Fekiruary 24, 1998 0000 )i Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 98- , amending the 1997/98 Budget by appropriating $37,500 from the MRA Housing Reserves to the MRA account "Other Contractual Services -HOME Down Payment Assistance Matching Funds" (232.504.5042.000.9191) to fund the matching requirements associated with the use of HOME funds for down payment assistance to Low Income First Time Home Buyers. C: \M \NLB \AGNDARPT \HOME DP ASSISTANCE RESO TRSF -2/21 /9888- February 24, 1998 RESOLUTION NUMBER 98 - RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FY 1997/98 BUDGET AUTHORIZING EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF MATCHING FUNDS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN HOME FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOW INCOME FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS WHEREAS, on June 18, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted the MRA Budget for FY 1997/98; and, WHEREAS, both the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency and the City Council wish to encourage home ownership by Low Income persons; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an application to obtain HOME funds to be used for Down Payment Assistance for Low Income First Time Home Buyers; and, WHEREAS, if approved, such application for HOME funds requires matching funds from the City and /or Agency; and, WHEREAS, a staff report has been submitted to the Redevelopment Agency requesting approval of a budget amendment to fund the matching requirements; and WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" hereof describes said budget amendment and its resultant impacts to the budget line items. NOW, THEREFORE, THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A budget allocation from the MRA Housing Reserves to account 232.504.5042.000.9191 (MRA Other Contractual Services -HOME Down Payment Assistance Matching Funds) as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto is hereby approved. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Ott` day of March 1998. Patrick Hunter Mayor ATTEST: Deborah Traffenstedt City Clerk 000003 EXHIBIT "A" APPROPRIATIONS BY ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER CURRENT SUPPLEMENTAL REVISED APPROPRIATION/ APPROPRIATION/ APPROPRIATION/ BALANCE REDUCTION BALANCE 232.504.5042.000.9191 0 37,500 37,500 MRA Housing Reserves 724,652 37,500) 687,152 00c,00,11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Honorable Agency Board of Directors ITEM • MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING John E. Nowak, Assistant Executive Director 23 February 1998 (Agency meeting of 03- 04 -98) PROPOSED GISLER FIELD DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION Background: At its December 17, 1997 meeting the Redevelopment Agency Board received a staff report on the two proposals received for development of the Agency owned property referred to as Gisler Field. The staff report highlighted 19 points that were included in the April 1997 Request for Proposal, or which staff determined were relevant for the Agency's review and consideration in making a decision on the proposal. On a 3 -2 vote, and based on the information provided in the staff report, the Agency Board authorized the Executive Director to negotiate a disposition and development agreement with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) for the Gisler Field project. The DDA was to be submitted for the Agency's consideration by April 1, 1998. Discussion: Staff has been meeting with representatives of CEDC on the elements for a Disposition and Development Agreement. At a meeting on February 20, CEDC presented its position on a series of points that staff feels are significantly different from the information presented in the staff report of December 1 and the Agency's action, and are requesting direction from the Board Members. The points of difference are as follows: CEDC had agreed, as indicated in the staff report, to have interest on the land purchase begin to accrue at the LAIF rate upon signing of the DDA. A staff recommendation was for interest to accrue at the recordation of the final map. CEDC's position now is for interest not to accrue until two (2) years after the DDA is signed or one (1) year after recordation of the final map, whichever is first. 2. CEDC had agreed to begin paying the accrued interest on the land purchase two 2) years after the DDA is signed. CEDC is now proposing that interest not be paid to the Agency until such time as individual units are sold and that payment be part of escrow closing. 3. CEDC had agreed to pay City fees and assessments on the market rate units under the regular schedule for development projects, and that the fees and assessments on the affordable units be deferred until the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Gisler Field DDA 18 February 1998 Page 02 on those units. CEDC's current position is for City fees and assessments on all units be deferred until close of escrow on the individual units. 4. The RFP required the full construction of the north /south street from Poindexter Avenue to the park as part of the development, with the Agency and the developer sharing the cost. The City has designed plans showing the full street construction. CEDC's latest proposal does not provide for a full build -out for the northern 250 +/- feet of the street due to a shift of the street location to the east to allow for the number of parcels they propose for development. This would require the City to purchase an additional thirteen (13') feet of right -of -way (3,250 square feet) for that length for street completion. (The City has already obtained the ten (10') wide right - of -way from the property owner.) This would add substantial cost to the street project. 5. Staff continues to have a concern that the private streets that are proposed for the project are not of a sufficient width and to not have sufficient "knuckles" at the corners to meet safety standards. (Fully dimensioned drawings or indication of approvals from Fire or other agencies have not been provided.) Changes in the street width may impact the number of units that can be built on the site. 6. CEDC's proposal called for 62 total units to be built with 16 affordable units included. The current proposal is for 58 total units with 15 affordable units. Staff is requesting the Redevelopment Agency Board to review these changes in the proposal submitted by CEDC and provide direction to staff as to whether negotiations on the DDA should continue. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board provide direction as to whether these modifications are acceptable to the Agency and if staff should continue negotiations under the revised terms. If the Agency provides direction to continue negotiations under the revised terms, staff recommends that the deadline for submitting a DDA for consideration be changed to May 6, 1998. Attachments Staff Report for 12 -17 -97 meeting Minutes of 12 -17 -97 meeting 0000 I v MOORpAFIK 0 r CITY OF MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MT04 AGENDA REPORT 1. 11 ' ACTM: wfff as a m ov TO: Honorable Agency Board Members FROM: John E. Nowak, Interim Economic Development Manager 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 staff s 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: 000019 t 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. 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. 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. Homes cannot front or have access from Poindexter Avenue or from the north -south street. 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. 000 10 Gisler Field Project 12 -17 -97 Agency Meeting Page 05 9. All lots are to meet City requirements, including setbacks, unit size and parking 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 006011 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. 0OU01 % 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 Agency 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. 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 LAIF 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 0O `..p 1 4. 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 /City 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 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: 1. 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 OM1016 ; 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: 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 LAIF interest rate. 00G ®1: c 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 OOCOI.S F_ EXI5TIN6 RESIDENTIAL PARCEL GHAPPARAL MIL_ 5GHOOL POINDEXTER PARK r i I It. I I ICI I SITE DATA D4 TYPIGAL LOT 51ZE Q 1- 5TORY: 41005.F. 2- 5TORY: 3400S.F. 5ETBAGK5 FRONT YARD: 18FEET REAR YARD: 15FEET 51DE YARD: 3FEET UNIT GOUNT 1- 5TORY: 24 2- 5TORY: 38 TOTAL UNIT COUNT: 62 I I o » a eo 120 I — Nt+9 Lu w I v v I I I I II i , I I I II 1. .. I I I I I j I MOORPARK E5TATE5 J J O MAINSTREETD4 ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS, INC. Q 455 EAnWiNSlow, SUmASVENTURA, GuroRRIAOSOOIva NOS) ON -2115 , PAX(M)BU -1552 COLMER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PvN P a k'r Vot AV d s IOAS, 3 L e tom- I I ll tv Il ) At rs PARR OAF. MMWN peu. Pun #A 00032c, MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Moorpark, California December 17, 1997 A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark was held on December 17, 1997 in the Council Chambers of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hunter called the meeting to order at 7 :45 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Evans, Perez, Teasley, Wozniak and Chairman Hunter. Staff Present: Steven Kueny, Executive Director; Cheryl Kane, Agency Counsel; John Nowak, Economic /Redevelopment Manager; Lisa Pope, Agency Deputy Secretary 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Resolution 97 -66 Adopting the Implementation Plan Update for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project Area. Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing, accept public testimony, close the public hearing, and adopt Resolution No. 97 -66 adopting the Implementation Plan Update for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project Area. (Continued from December 3, 1997) Mr. Nowak gave the staff report. Chairman Hunter opened the public hearing. As there were no speakers for this item, Chairman Hunter closed the public hearing. Agency Member Teasley discussed the business loans and stated she had not represented the building located at 223 High Street that had received a loan. She stated the property she had represented was located at 255 High Street and that they had not received a loan. MOTION: Agency Member Evans moved and Agency Member Perez seconded a motion to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. S. PRESENTATIONS /ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Review of Proposals for Gisler Field Project. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to ilkWk6)d'I Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 2 December 17, 1997 negotiate a development agreement with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation for the Gisler Field Housing Project to be submitted for Agency review and adoption. Mr. Nowak gave the staff report. In response to Chairman Hunter, Mr. Nowak stated the Olsen Company had submitted an unsolicited proposal. He stated the price for the land was higher than the other two proposals but had some unresolved issues that might impact the land purchase price. In response to Chairman Hunter, Mr. Nowak stated the proposed density was 9.39 dwelling units per acre with a total of 62 units. He stated it was necessary to look at net development acres rather than gross development acres. Rodney Fernandez, 11011 Azahar Street, Saticoy, addressed the Council as a representative of Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation. Karen Flock, 11011 Azahar Street, Saticoy, addressed the Council as a representative of Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation. She discussed the design proposal for the project. Deborah Guthrie, 486 E. Main Street, Ventura, addressed the Council as a representative for Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, and discussed the architectural design for the project. Mr. Fernandez thanked staff and stated he looked forward to the opportunity to work in a partnership with the City. He stated they were ready to proceed if selected and would return the full $1.5 million dollars to the City. David Aguirre, 689 New Los Angeles Avenue, Apartment A, addressed the Council as a representative of the Villa Campesina Corporation. He discussed the need for affordable housing in the City and indicated his support for the Cabrillo proposal. Agency Member Wozniak expressed his concerns regarding repayment of $1.5 million commencing after two years and wanted that issue addressed during negotiations. He stated his concerns about the sale price for single family homes being in the $180,000 - $190,000 price range. Agency Member Evans stated he supported affordable housing but wanted all proposals included in the process at this time. 00CN Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 3 December 17, 1997 Agency Member Teasley concurred with Agency Member Wozniak that the price range was too high. In response to Agency Member Perez, Mr. Kueny discussed the loan program in place for the Mission Bell project. Agency Member Perez supported using the site for low income housing and moving forward with Cabrillo. In response to Agency Member Perez, Mr. Kueny stated one purpose of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) was to set a time frame for both parties to comply with. Agency Member Perez suggested striking Condition #5 to let it evolve through the DDA discussion process. Chairman Hunter discussed the Olsen proposal which would pay the Agency $2.25 million. He suggested considering the Olsen proposal because of the additional amount of money and asked staff to analyze Olsen's proposal. In response to Chairman Hunter, Mr. Kueny stated the densities and setbacks were equivalent in both the Olsen and Cabrillo proposals. He stated 62 units was consistent with the RFP. Agency Member Evans stated he felt that if the Cabrillo agreement was going to be modified, the Olsen proposal should also be looked at. MOTION: Agency Member Perez moved and Agency Member Wozniak seconded a motion to strike Condition 5, to drop the penalty from Condition 1, to drop Agency participation from Condition 2 and to follow the CEDC schedule in Condition 3. Mr. Kueny stated the changes suggested by Agency Member Perez were to be negotiable items. He stated the penalties in Condition 1 were necessary. He stated Condition 2 would follow local preference. He explained that in Condition 3, staff was open to work with whichever occurred first. He stated in Condition 5, staff would need specific direction if the Agency was open to amending the Ccde. AMENDMENT: Agency Member Perez moved to amend the motion to include in Condition 2 "... as it related to local promotion ", leave Condition 5 open for the zoning text to be amended if needed and to leave Conditions 1 and 3 as presented in the staff report. Agency Member Wozniak seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried by voice vote 3 -2, Agency Members Evans and Chairman Hunter dissenting. 0000 1,20, a Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 4 December 17, 1997 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on December 3, 1997. Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes as processed. B. Consider City Council and MRA Resolution Amending the FY 1997/98 Budget 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 410]. Staff Recommendation: 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). MOTION: Agency Member Evans moved and Agency Member Wozniak seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. 6. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Agency Member Evans moved an Agency Member Wozniak seconded a motion to adjourn. The otio carried /by unanimous voice vote. The time was 8:40 p.m. / ATTEST: Y Vx' pcy"& Lisa Pope, Agency Deputy Secretary rANNAW l IFOR ooQP Pry OF ' atrick Ifunter, Chairman AGENDA REPORT To: The Honorable City Council The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency p From: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works Date: February 20, 1998 (Council Meeting 3 -4 -98) ITEM 5 • C • MOORPARK. CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF m) 'i 1N2. ACTION: f Subject: Consider Approval of the Notice of Completion for Maureen Lane, Bonnie View Street and Alleys Improvement Project and the Adoption of Resolutions Amending the MRA and the City Budgets for FY 1997198 to Reflect Actual Funding Sources and Revised Estimated Final Cost BACKGROUND On June 4, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract to CNM Paving, Inc. for the construction of the Maureen Lane, Bonnie View Street and Downtown Alleys re- pavement project. The approved amount was $301,135.60 for construction, plus a 30,114.00 construction contingency [Total: $331,249.601 2. Funds for this work and for the inspection and contract administration, were incumbered in FY 1996/97. Any unexpended moneys at the end of FY 1996197 were carried over to FY 1997198. 3. On August 20, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 97 -63 providing certain contingency funds in the FY 1997/98 Budget for this project. 4. On October 15, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 97 -65 increasing the FY 1997/98 Budget for this project to fund an expanded scope of work for this project. A summary of the current budget for this project is as follows: Description FY 1996/97 Budget FY 1996/97 Year End Actual FY 96/97 Carry Over to FY 97/98 Plus Added by MRA Reso # 97 -63 Plus Added by MRA Reso # 97 -65 Current FY 97198 Budget Alleys Bonnie View Maureen Total 300,000 75,000 150,000 525,000 7,734 5,774 3,340 16,848 209,209 43,981 106,403 359,593 2,000 500 1,000 3,500 28,000 9,500 9,000 46,500 239,209 53,981 116,403 409,593 nauren.cap 0010 'a,•. Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 2 DISCUSSION A. Scope of Work The scope of work for this construction contract is generally described as follows: 1. Maureen Lane: construction of drainage improvements and the reconstruction and /or overlay of the asphalt pavement to provide a "rural street (with A/C rolled curbs)" consistent with the design theme of the area; 2. Bonnie View Street: reconstruction of the asphalt pavement with the addition of a center ribbon gutter; and, 3. Alleys: reconstruction of the asphalt pavement with the addition of center ribbon gutters throughout and a storm drain line in the alley south of Third Street. B. Final Contract Price 1. One Change Order was approved for the removal of conflicting sub- structures and related work associated with the construction of the storm drain in the alley south of Third Street. The amount of Change Order No. 1 was $4,952.70. 2. The actual quantities of bid items required to construct the project was higher than the amount initially estimated by the design engineer. The cost of the required additional quantities was $22,155.35. 3. The sum of the cost of Change Orders and additional quantities is $27,108.05. The approved construction contingency was $30,114. 4. A summary of the final contract price is as follows: Final Contract Price ($j Bonnie Element Alleys View Maureen Total Bid Amount 177,388.60 32,378.00 91,369.00 301,135.60 Cost of Additional Quantities 14,438.00 5,297,.60 2,420.15 22,155.75 Sub-Total 191,826.60 37,675.60 93,789.15 323,291.35 Change orders 4,952.70 0.00 0.00 4,952.70 Total 196,779.30 37,675.60 93,789.15 328,244.05 mauren.cmp 000 'd Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 3 C. STOP NOTICE The City is in receipt of STOP NOTICES from a number of the contractor's suppliers and /or sub- contractors. All progress payments to the contractor have been placed on hold until these STOP NOTICES have been released. D. Phase 2 Alley Improvements The Budget amendment approved by the City Council last October was, in part, provided to fund the construction of additional improvements in the alleys to provide concrete, asphalt or gravel surfaces between the existing edge of pavement and the property fences. Staff attempted to negotiate an acceptable price for this added work with the contractor. Those attempts failed. It is the intent of staff to seek bids for this work as a follow -up project. The estimated cost for this follow -up contract is $25,000. E. Completion Construction of the project began in September of 1997. All construction has been completed less certain final "punch list" items which the contractor is in the process of correcting. Those corrections are expected to be completed within the next few weeks. F. Increased Construction Engineering Costs The scope and complexity of this construction project was considerably more difficult than that anticipated by the firm retained [M3 Civil Engineering] to provide the required Construction Engineering Services (contract administration and inspections). A number of tasks required to adequately provide these services were identified as being beyond the scope of work prescribed in the professional services contract for those services. Accordingly, the scope of work and fee were revised. The total fee was increased from 14,200 to $34,988. It should be noted that the only other fee quoted for these, which was received from the City Engineer [Charles Abbott Associates] was $43,000. G. Fiscal Impact Total Contract Costs: The final contract price stated above is summarized as follows: Bid Amount: $301,135.60 Additional Quantities $ 22,155.75 Sub -Total $323,291.35 Change Order No. 1: $ 4.952.70 Total $328,244.05 mauren.cmp A, Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 4 2. Phase 2 Alley Work: As mentioned above, it is the intent of staff to seek bids for a second contract to construct additional "Pave -out" improvements in the alley. The total estimated cost for this added work is as follows: Construction: Contingency: Sub -Total Design Engineering: Construction Engineering: Total 25,000.00 2,500.00 27,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 32,500.00 3. Total Project Costs: A summary of the total estimated cost for this combined project is as follows: Phase 2 Project Construction 271500 Project Cost Estimate ($} 27,500 Design 2,500 Bonnie 0 2,500 Element Alleys View Maureen Total Phase 1 Project 2,500 0 0 2.500 Construction 196,780 37,675 93,780 328,235 Design 5,345 8,000 21,000 34,345 Contingency 6,000 1,000 3,000 10,000 Admin & Inspection 21,000 5,000 9,000 35,000 229,125 51,675 126,780 407,580 Phase 2 Project Construction 271500 0 0 27,500 Design 2,500 0 0 2,500 Contingency 1,000 1,000 Admin & Inspection 2,500 0 0 2.500 33,500 0 0 33,500 262,625 51,675 126,780 441,080 mauren.cmp 0002 8 Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 5 4. Multi -Year Costs: The following is a summary of project costs incurred over several Fiscal Years: Multi -Year Expenditure Summary Element Prior Years FY 1996/97 FY 1997/98 Total Phase 1 21,745 16,848 368,987 407,580 Phase 2 0 0 33,500 33,500 Total 21,745 16,848 402,487 441,080 5. FY 1997198 Total Project Costs: Total anticipated project costs during FY 1997/98 are summarized as follows: 6. Funding Sources: The primary funding source for this project is the MRA. However, the City has received a State -Local Partnership Program Grant funding a portion of the construction costs. The adjusted Budget showing these funding sources is summarized as follows: FY 1997/98 Alleys: 410.801.8001.000.9903 Bonnie View: 410.801.8006.000.9903 Maureen: 410.801.8010.000.9903 Sub -Total FY 1997/98 FY 1996/97 Prior Years Total Project mauren.cap Funding Sources State FY 1997/98 Costs Grant Total 216,269 Bonnie 239,469 43,950 Element Alleys View Maureen Total Total Costs 262,625 51,675 126,780 441,080 Less Prior Years 23,150 3,859) 11,578) 38,593) Total FY 1997/98 239,469 47,816 115,202 402,487 6. Funding Sources: The primary funding source for this project is the MRA. However, the City has received a State -Local Partnership Program Grant funding a portion of the construction costs. The adjusted Budget showing these funding sources is summarized as follows: FY 1997/98 Alleys: 410.801.8001.000.9903 Bonnie View: 410.801.8006.000.9903 Maureen: 410.801.8010.000.9903 Sub -Total FY 1997/98 FY 1996/97 Prior Years Total Project mauren.cap Funding Sources 00CIO"' State MRA Grant Total 216,269 23,200 239,469 43,950 3,866 471816 103,602 11,600 115,202 363,821 38,666 402,487 0 16,848 21,745 441,080 00CIO"' Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 6 7. Budget Amendment: Attached are Resolutions amending the FY 1997/98 Budget for both the City and the MRA to reflect the project funding noted above. Those proposed budget changes are summarized as follows: Funding Source /Account MRA Alleys: 410.801.8001.000.9801 Bonnie View: 410.801.8006.000.9801 Maureen: 410.801.8010.000.9801 Sub -Total MRA State -Local Partnership Grant Alleys 246.801.8001.000.9801 Bonnie View 246.801.8006.000.9801 Maureen Lane 246.801.8010.000.9801 Sub -Total Grant Total Combined Budget H. Project AcceWnce Budget Adjustment Current FY 97/98 FY 97/98 Adjustment Total 2391207 22,938) 2161269 53,981 10,031) 43,950 116,403 12,8W 103,602 409,591 45,770) 363,821 0 23,200 23,200 0 3,866 3,866 0 1L 600 11, 600 0 38,666 38,666 409,591 7,104) 402,487 The consultant Project Manager and City staff have completed a final inspection of the project and have found the work to be acceptable less completion of minor punch list items. As noted above, all payments to the contractor are being withheld due to receipt of certain STOP NOTICES. It is appropriate for the City Council to accept the improvements and authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion. Payment of any outstanding Progress Payments or the final retention will be withheld until a RELEASE OF STOP NOTICE has been received for all outstanding STOP NOTICES. mauren.cmp Maureen / Bonnie View / Alleys March 4, 1998 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION A. City Council: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Accept the work as complete, except as noted in this report; 2. Instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; and, 3. Authorize the release of the retention upon satisfactory clearance of the thirty five 35) day lien period, correction of all punch -list items and release of all STOP NOTICES. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 98- _, approving certain amendments to the FY 1997/98 Budget to reflect Grant proceeds for the subject project, summarized as follows: a) Alleys: (Account No.: 400.801.8001.000.9801): from $0 to $23,200 ($23,200 increase); b) Bonnie View Street: (Account No.: 400.801.8006.000.9801): from $0 to 3,866 ($3,866 increase); and, c) Maureen Lane: (Account No.: 400.801.8010.000.9801): from $0 to $11,600 11,600 increase) . B. Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (MRA): Staff recommends that the MRA adopt MRA Resolution No. 98 - =, approving certain amendments to the FY 1997/98 MRA Budget summarized as follows: a) Alleys: (Account No.: 410.801.8001.000.9801): from $239,207 to $216,269 22,938 decrease); b) Bonnie View Street: (Account No.: 410.801.8006.000.9801): from $53,981 to 43,950 ($10,031 decrease); and, c) Maureen Lane: (Account No.: 410.801.8010.000.9801): from $116,403 to 103,602 ($12,801 decrease). mauren. cap 000031 RESOLUTION NO. 98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FY 1997/98 BUDGET TO REFLECT CERTAIN GRANT FUNDING FOR A PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN ALLEYS, BONNIE VIEW STREET AND MAUREEN LANE [FUND 246] 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 $38,666, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1998. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTESTED: Debbie Traffenstedt, City Clerk 00003% Resolution No. 98 - Exhibit "A" [Page I of 21 RE -CAP OF CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS BY ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER CURRENT APPROPRIATION SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION) REDUCTION REVISED APPROPRIATION REVENUES 246.000.0000.000.3499 0 38,666) 38,666) Sub -Total Revenues 38,666) EXPENDITURES Alleys 400.801.8001. * * *. * * ** 216,269 23,200 239,469 Bonnie View Street 400.801.8006.***.**** 43,950 3,866 47,816 Maureen Lane 400.801.8010.***.**** 103,602 11,600 115,202 Sub -Total Expenditures 3631821 38,666 402,487 TOTALS: 0 Notes: * The negative number for revenues is an INCREASE in the revenue budget. Amounts reflected in MRA Resolution adopted March 4, 1998. 000033 Resolution No. 98 - Exhibit "A" [Page 2 of 21 SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) BY FUND FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER CURRENT TRANSFER IN / (OUT) SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) REVISED TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) Other State Grants - Streets 246.801.8001.000.9801 0 23,200) 23,200) Other State Grants - Streets 246.801.8006.000.9801 0 3,866) 3,866) Other State Grants - Streets 246.801.8010.000.9801 0 11,600) 11,600) MRA 410.801.8001.000.9801 216,269) 0 216,269) MRA 410.801.8006,0009801 43,950) 0 43,950) MRA 410.801.8010.000.9801 103,602) 0 103,602) Sub -Total 363,821) 38,666) 402,487) Capital imp 400.801.8001.000.3992 216,269 23,200 239,469 Capital Imp 400.801.8006.000.3992 43,950 3,866 47,816 Capitallmp 400.801.8010.000.3992 103,602 11,600 115,202 Sub -Total 363,821 38,666 402,487 NET TRANSFERS Should be $0) 0 0 0 000® ,34. RESOLUTION NO. 98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING THE MRA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 AS IT PERTAINS TO A PROJECT FOR THE RESURFACING OF THE DOWNTOWN ALLEYS, BONNIE VIEW STREET AND MAUREEN LANE (FUND 410) WHEREAS, on June 18, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted the MRA Budget for Fiscal Year 1997/98; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of a final accounting of FY 1996/97 costs, certain unexpended encumbrances related to the above cited projects were carried over to FY 1997/98; and, WHEREAS, on August 20, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No 97 -63 appropriating certain additional funds for said projects; and, WHEREAS, on October 15, 1997, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No 97 -65 again appropriating certain additional funds for said projects; and, WHEREAS, a staff report has been presented to the MRA requesting approval of an amendment to the FY 1997/98 MRA Budget to reflect actual anticipated year -end expenses for said projects; 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 decrease of $45,770 as more particularly described in Exhibit "A," is hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1998. Patrick Hunter, Chairman Moorpark Redevelopment Agency ATTESTED: Debbie Traffenstedt, Secretary 0001031._ Resolution No. 98 - Exhibit "A" SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BY ACCOUNT NUMBER PROJECT ACCOUNT NUMBER 400.801.8001. * * *. * * ** CURRENT APPROPRIATION 239,207 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REDUCTION) 22,938) REVISED APPROPRIATION 216,269 Alleys Bonnie View 400.801.8006. * * *. * * ** 53,981 10,031) 43,950 Maureen Lane 400.801.8010. * * *. * * ** 116,403 12,801) 103,602 410.801.8010.000.9801 ITOTALS: 409,591 45,770) 1 $363,821 SUMMARY OF TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) BY FUND FUND ACCOUNT NUMBER CURRENT TRANSFER IN / (OUT) SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) REVISED TRANSFERS IN / (OUT) MRA 410.801.8001.000.9801 239,207) 22,938 216,269) MRA 410.801.8006.000.9801 53,981) 10,031 43,950) MRA 410.801.8010.000.9801 116,403) 12,801 103,602) Sub -Total 409,591) 45,770 363,821) Capital Imp 400.801.8001.000.3992 239,207 22,938) 216,269 Capital Imp 400.801.8006.000.3992 53,981 10,031) 43,950 Capital Imp 400.801.8010.000.3992 116,403 12,801) 103,602 Sub -Total 409,591 45,770) 363,821 NET TRANSFERS Should be $0) 0 0 0 i 00GIIT: