The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-10-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS (2)AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: October 25, 1994 SUBJECT: Additional Public Input in Follow -Up to Recommendations from the Public Participation Process DEPARTMENT: Community Recovery Agency Background At the October 11, 1994 Redevelopment Agency meeting, a series of recommendations arising from the City's Public Participation Process were reported to the Agency Board. At the same time, a number of requests for additional time to consider those recommendations were presented. Staff was directed to follow-up with each of the individuals/groups submitting these requests and then to resubmit this item for Board consideration. Attached to this Agenda Report is the October 11 document, "Recommendations From the Public Participation Process." The City Manager or the Recovery Agency Manager has discussed the recommendations, alternatives, and various other points raised at the October Il meeting with the individuals/groups that spoke. No unardmous point of view on every facet of Recovery Agency operations or its initial projects exists. Because of this, many of those that spoke before the Agency Board have indicated their intentions to do so again, in order to best represent their particular points of view. There is, however, apparent general agreement on a substantial number of the elements contained in the recommendations. Included in the input we have received is the following suggested additions to the recommendations presented previously: The impact of redevelopment operations on the existing building permit process should be publicly discussed, clarified, and presented for Board consideration. The concept of eminent domain should be publicly discussed, clarified, and presented for Board consideration, with opporttulities for two-way communications. A commitment to the development of architectural guidelines and historic preservation, as those concepts are embraced through the community input process, z Agenda Item: should be included in the Newhall and Canyon Country (Saugus) Revitalization Strategies. A Recovery Agency mission statement should be publicly discussed, clarified, and presented for Board consideration. Regularly recurring public forums, with opporturuties for two-way communications, on Recovery Agency operations and projects should be conducted. As was evident in the past, the most significant divergence of opinion relates to the area of on- going citizen involvement. The staff has identified four alternative citizen involvement options which might even be combined to form additional options. It has been recommended that the elected City Council serve as the CRA Board and form citizen advisory groups or task committees as needed. These groups would function as reflected in the Communications Process Flow diagram. One alternative supported by one of the speakers was to form a commission similar to the Parks and Recreation Commission or Planning Commission. If that resulted in extended timelines for project completion then, "so be it." Or, certain time -sensitive functions such as economic development could be exempted from the Commission purview. Another speaker indicated that he/she was not in support of a commission, but that the City would have to very carefully implement its on-going citizen involvement in order to maintain support for and involvement in the redevelopment process. Still another speaker supported on-going citizen involvement by expanding the five (5) member City Council with four (4) additional public members, possibly having these members elected at large, when sitting as the Agency Board of Directors. Meetings with various school representatives are scheduled after this Agenda Report's preparation and are not reflected above. This input should, however, be available for the Board's consideration on October 25. The Chamber Task Force meeting is scheduled similarly, and its principals have indicated their concurrence that this item be scheduled on the October 25 Agency Board meeting agenda. Recommended Action It is recommended that the Agency Board receive such additional input as may be presented by the various individual/group spokespersons, then reconsider the recommended approval of the CRA Operational Guidelines and Project Priorities (as previously presented October 11), and direct staff to implement same. Included here will be preparation of a bond financing plan which will be completed for Agency Board review within sixty (60) days. Consultant selection processes for Newhall Revitalization, Canyon Country/Saugus Revitalization, Business Revitalization, and creation of a Housing Framework, strategy are currently underway, and are scheduled for final Agency Board action within that time frame as well. Attachments October 11, 1994 Agenda Report to City Council comremvAw 1021,94.1 FILE COPY AGENDA REPORT City UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval Cathy Culotip Sammee Zeile DATE: October 11, 1994 SUBJECT- Recommendations From the Public Participation Process DEPARTMENT: Community Recovery Agency Background Under separate cover the Agency Board has been provided with a copy of the Community Participation Process Reference Manual. That document reported the results of the most extensive citizen participation program ever undertaken by the City. Attachment I more completely describes the meetings and groups that were involved in this program. The Reference Manual also includes copies of the citizen survey information which was collected. The top ten (10) community priorities based upon the collected surveys are as follows: Road/Bridge Repairs Individual School District Repairs Attract/Retain Jobs Improve Road Systems Newhall Revitalization San Fernando Road Debris Removal Single -Family Residential Repair Grants/Loans Code Enforcement/Neighborhood Improvement Senior Housing Other priorities reflected in the survey results appear in Attachment 11. After receiving the Reference Manual, the Council/Agency Board conducted a Study Session on September 28, 1994, to receive additional citizen and group input. The issue of ongoing citizen involvement seemed to generate the most comment at this session. A number of elaborate A9 mdaltem: organizational concepts were presented. A full range of alternative organizations is described in Attachment 111. The recommendations contained herein are consistent with the generally accepted practice as surveyed among Los Angeles County Redevelopment Agencies. Based upon the process which has been completed, staff recommends the following ongoing citizen involvement structure for adoption by the Board: ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. A commitment to meaningful and ongoing public participation is critically important to effective CRA operations. Formal appointments to the committees listed below have been avoided to promote open participation and Brown Act encumbrances. A multi -task committee approach is suggested: A. A Newhall Revitalization Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the preparation of a specific five (5) to seven (7) year revitalization strategy and urban design plan for Newhall.. Final approval authority for the Strategy/Plan would remain with the City Council/Agency Board. Members: Open to all business owners; operators, residents, property owners, or anyone interested in participating in the Newhall Revitalization Strategy/Plan. B. A Canyon Country/Saugus (Soledad/S.F. Road Corridor) Revitalization Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the preparation of a specific five (5) to seven (7) year revitalization strategy and urban design plan for Canyon Country Revitalization. Final approval authority for the Strategy/Plan would remain with the City Council/Agency Board. Members: Open to all business owners, operators, residents, property owners, or anyone interested in participating in the Canyon Country Corridor Revitalization Strategy/Plan. C. A Housing Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the preparation of an overall housing framework, strategy, and activity program for the community of Santa Clarita which brings together all of the various available funding sources (redevelopment, CDBG, HOME, MCC, etc.) on both an immediate and long- range time frame. All of the various need areas will also be addressed (single family, multi -family, mobile home, owner and non -owner occupied). Final approvals remain with City Council/ Agency Board.. Members: Board of Realtors President; Inter -faith Council Representative; Local Banking Representative; Newhall Land and Farm Residential Representative, Local Residential Developer; SCOPE Representative; SCV Senior Center Executive Director; and Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Panel Chair. D. A Santa Clarita Schools/Agency Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To establish an ongoing forum for two-way communications between the local school districts and the City/Agency. Members: The various public school Superintendents and the City Manager/Agency Director would meet on a regular basis to assure effective open and two-way communication. Each Task Force representative would be responsible for facilitating the involvement of their respective elected representatives. Existence of this group would no -L be intended to prohibit or inhibit elected official communication with the City/Agency, only to enhance same. E. A Business Revitalization Task Committee should be established, Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in organizing the various community resources in order to enhance its ability to attract/retain jobs and to strengthen overall economic development activities. Final approval authority remains with City Council/ Agency Board. Members: Open to all business owners, operators, Chambers of Commerce, VIA, and anyone interested in participating in business revitalization. F. City Council/Agency Board consideration of private or public interest proposed projects beyond the established priorities may undertaken as provided in State Law and local guidelines as such projects are submitted. Such projects may include joint projects with the County, and Sanitation Districts, individual school districts, etc. II. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS. In addition to the ongoing Citizen Involvement task group elements described in I above, the following procedural elements are suggested: A. A comprehensive process of citizen involvement as described, in the flow diagram appearing as Attachment IV should be adopted. This process begins With the input provided through this extensive public participation process, then proceeds to broad-based citizen task committee groups organized to address those projects identified as having priority importance, then culminates in City Council/Agency Board adoption following open public hearings. The comprehensive plan which is produced by this process will integrate the various specific priority project plans with the established General Plan and be implemented through annually adopted operating Budgets and the Capital Improvement Program. Consistent with State law, the 'Planning Commission role in certifying the Capital Improvement Program will be maintained. B, A Recovery Agency Newsletter/communication vehicle should be established with the community at -large, and should be regularly distributed. Spanish language translations Should also be provided. C. A policy should be adopted requiring a public hearing prior to adoption of the annual Recovery Agency Budget and/or Capital Improvement Program. Purpose: To assure ongoing public notice, information, and the opportunity for participation, the Council/Agency Board of Directors shall adopt a resolution establishing a public hearing requirement prior to annual Agency Budget adoption and/or Capital Improvement Program adoption. D. The City should seek at least ex -officio representation on the Board of Directors of the two Chambers of Commerce and VIA as essential business community organizations beginning immediately. Purpose: To enhance City/Agency communications and to foster effective coordination of mutually beneficial programs with the two Chambers of Commerce and VIA. E. The Community Participation Process which has been initiated should be continued. High quality citizen education and involvement is critical to the long-term success of the Recovery Agency. In addition, relationships which have been established between the City/Agency and the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce, the Canyon Country Chamber of Commerce, Inter -faith Council, the various Homeowners Associations, VIA, CULTURE, the various school districts, and the community generally should be continued and expanded upon. To facilitate this, at least one of the community participation consultant's contracts should be retained as needed. III. Other CRA Operational Guidelines Recommended for Board adoption are as follows: A. PROJECT AREA SIZE. The Project Area Size should be resolved as soon as possible with the settlement of current litigation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROJECTS. Santa Clarity Organization for Planning the Environment has requested the City/Agency to formally amend the Recovery Plan to clarify its intent to observe all relevant environmental law.. A formal amendment or alternatively acceptable action (e.g. a City ordinance or Resolution) is suggested. C. HOUSING POLICY. General interest in promoting the quality of the Community's housing stock has been communicated. In furtherance of this interest, itis suggested that the City/Agency adopt a Resolution as provided for in State law which would allow it to undertake housing projects beyond the Project Area boundaries, yet within the City limits. D. SPANISH LANGUAGE SESSIONS. It is suggested that additional Community Participation Sessions be conducted for Spanish language citizens of the Community. E. RECOVERY AGENCY DESIGNATION. A final designation of the name "Recovery Agency" should be made for the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. F. REGULAR REVIEW. On a periodic basis, the City/Agency should undertake a thorough evaluation and review of this citizen participation process and the guidelines and project priorities which are in place, in order to affirm or modify these to enhance the public interest. With regard to the establishment of Project priorities, it is recommended that the Agency Board formally designate the following general project priorities for further staff evaluation and return to the Board: Earthquake Repair/Relief A. Residential, commercial, industrial, and mobile home earthquake damage rehabilitation grants and/or loans. B. Debris removal (beyond FEMA) C, Vermont Street/Everett Street Area septic system repair (a public/private assessment district partnership) D. General road and bridge system repairs (beyond FEMA, after shock movement) if. Newhall Revitalization A. Plan development B. Public infrastructure and improvements C. Business attraction/redevelopment D. Apple Street Area improvements (a public/private assessment district partnership) III. Canyon Country/Saugus (Soledad/S.F. Road Corridor) Revitalization A. Plan development (to be EDA -funded) B. Public infrastructure and improvements C. Granada Villa Mobile home Park improvements (a public/private partnership) IV. joint Public Agency Projects A. The local School Districts have submitted or indicated that they would like to submit various projects for City Council/Agency Board consideration of possible CRA funding. Compilations of a complete, current identification of such projects should be undertaken as soon as the current litigation obstacles: have been eliminated. At that point particular individual project details and alternatives could meaningfully be considered by the City.. V_ Economic Development A. CRA projects which provide for jobs attraction and retention have received high support through the community participation process.; B. Further study and review of the most effective means for attracting/retaining local jobs and providing economic development activities should be undertaken. C. Analyze the potential for City/Agency involvement in a "learning center." A general conceptual budget for these projects is reflected in Attachment V, It is recommended that the Agency Board approve the above CRA Operational Guidelines and Project Priorities and direct staff to implement same. Included here will be preparation of a bond financing plan will be completed for Agency Board review within sixty (60) days. Consultant selection processes for Newhall Revitalization, Canyon Country/Saugus Revitalization, Business Revitalization, and creation of a Housing Framework, Strategy are. currently underway, and are scheduled for final Agency Board action within that time frame as well. I: Community Recovery Agency Public Participation Meetings Summary IL Survey Priority Ranking 111. CRA Citizen Involvement Options IV. Citizen Involvement Process Flow Chart V: CRA Bond Financing Projections (5%) comrxavlar10 1194.1 ATTACHMENT I COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 SUMMARY ♦ Over 43 Public Citizen Participation Meetings. ♦ Over 578 Citizens attended at least one Community Meetings. ♦ Over 644 letters of invitation sent to leadership groups throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. • Over 951 Public Meeting flyers sent out to various groups, organizations, and individuals throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. ♦ Advertising of meeting schedule was placed in the Signal, Daily News, and Los Angeles Times. ♦ Numerous news releases were given to all local media. ♦ Numerous public service announcements and interviews were given on KBET 1220. ♦ News releases and flyers were given to local companies for their bulletin boards or internal publications. ♦ 3909 surveys were distributed at public meetings, to groups, and organizations, media, and any individual requests. • 232 (6%) completed surveys were returned. ♦ We have received many individual or group letters of response in lieu of completing the survey. ,gypM\ftnW'. y -'P4 COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 DATE: MEETING WITH: Attended May 12 Econ. Develop. Committee Meeting N/A May 18 Soroptimist Club 18 May 23 Canyon Country Chamber Bd. of Exec. 7 May 24 Canyon Country Chamber Bus. Lunch 20 June 7 Chamber Legislative Luncheon, Bruce Tepper (CLWA}>, N/A June 9 VIA.Bd. of Directors 9 June 13 Press. Briefing ,®.. City . Hall 4 June 13 Joint Council "& Comm Study; Session N/A June 14 Board of Realtors 20 June 15 Dan Hon (Education Session) 1 June 20. ',. ,VIA & Chamber Task Group #1€ June 20— Willie Fleet, Signal I ,. June 21 Newhall Water Board District * 'a July i SCV Chamber Board June 23 CasGic Clamber Board June 27 Public Meeting N1 3{b July, 6 Public Meeting #2 Ig July 7 VIA -A Chamber Task Group N2 ' >? July'7 FEMAIOES Office 7 July -31: Public Meeting N3 7 July 1Z'-...; inter -Faith Council ,18 July 14 Via Ondit Group 28 July 15 Ntw alt :and and Farm za July 18 GLT.i:tJiLE --- Assoc fN s 23" July 19 Val indust &C July w - q. ISg'. July 20--15CV Ealli Republicans July 21 VK'4 Chamber Task Group) July 11 Public Meeting N4 3 July 25 School Administrators B July 28 VLA 6c Chamber Task Group Aug. •Z J!1�Aoards 1 ;; Aug. 18 Democratic Aliance 10 Aug. 22 Newhall (Everett & Vermont Drives) 14 Aug. 29 School Bd. of Trustees Association 15 C"MPART\ URVSTAT.MEM COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 Survey Distribution and Return Name of Group Number Distributed Number Refumed Accents 10 0 Board of Realtors 620 15 Calif, Republicans 20 1 City of Santa Clartta 181 50 College of the Canyons 20 1 CULTURE 215 0 Democratic Alliance 42 14 Don Schmansid 5 4 Everett Meeting 20 6 Hart School District 50 4 Individual Response 7 6 Interfaith Council 1444 25 Non-Protit Organizations 21 4 Patti Rasmussen Group 53 25 Public Meeting #1 30 5 Public Meeting #2 37 3 Public Meeting #3 13 12 Public Meeting. #4 50 12 Samuel Dtxon Clinic 20 0 School Administrators 31 13 SCOPE Newsletters 800 10 SCV Democratic Club 10 1 Senior Center 190 21 VIA (.luly 19) 20 0 Totals: 3909 232 5.94% ATTACHMENT II Survey Priority Ranking Very Important Not n Responses A. Earthquake Damage Repair 1 Road "Bridge 7vgtem Repair 171 40 7 218 2 Ind L%idual School District Repairs 147 58 12 217 7 Debns Removal 145 101 17 213 8 Single-Fam, Res. Repair Grants/Loans 84 92 33 209 Replace Damaged Library Bunks 77 103 36 216 Utility Companies Repairs 77 83 51 211 Business Repair Grants/Loans 75 111 22 208 Mobile Home Repairs Grants/ Loans 73 448 34 210 Multi -Family Repair Grants/Loans 66 106 34 206 Park Facility Repairs 32 125 50 207 Private School Repairs 27 81 96 204 B. Community Infrastructure/Minimizing Future Disaster Impacts 4 East/West Riad System 127 70 16 213 4 North/South Road System 94 79 33 206 Construct Emergency Ops Center 67 99 37 203 Public Transit Enhancements 61 92 50 203 Enhance Other Communi ty Roads 60 97 46 203 Hart Auditorium Rehab. 56 111 44 211 Landslide Repair 54 116 34 204 Multi -Purpose Sports Complex 26 53 120 199 Four Oaks Drainage Improvements 11 87 82 180 C. Economic Development 3 Attract New Jobs 131 64 18 213 3 Assist/Retain Existing Employers 115 68 20 203 5 Newhall Revitalization Ill 81 24 216 6 San Fernando Road Rerouting 96 78 35 209 Small/Med. Business Revolv. Loans 54 107 36 197 Construct Golden Triangle Road Ext. 47 95 59 201 Comm/Industrial Bldg. Reinforcement 43 122 34 199 Dillenbeck's Area Improvement 42 86 59 187 D. Housing 9 Code Enforce/Neighborhood Improve. 83 97 27 207 10 Senior Housing Programs 82 93 32 207 Mod. Income Housing 75 80 41 196 Housing Rehabilitation Grants/Loans 61 101 33 195 First -Time Homebuyer Incentive Prog. 48 81 64 193 Low -Income Housing 42 86 68 196 Mobile Home Ownership Program 23 85 77 185 ATTACHMENT III CRA CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OPTIONS Inunluexxlerit Opti is . ,amaxr�nts 1. Elected C.C. acts alone as CRA Board 1, This option provides the elected City Council/Agency Board with control available under State Law of the important financial and policy decisions. State Law contains extensive public hearing and meeting requirements. Project/activity completion should be able to occur most quickly through this option. This option, however, provides a perception of minimal community participation. 2. Elected C.C. acts as CRA Board and forms 2. This option provides the elected City Council/Agency Board with authority and citizen advisory groups as needed. responsibility for the important financial and policy decisions as well as extensive community participation activities. Such added involvement will mean that L.A, and Ventura County Redevelopment projects/activities will not occur as quickly as in Option 1, Such added agencies with populations between 75,000 and involvement will also increase the costs of providing staff support services. Such 437,000 are almost totally of this nature (all advisory group involvement, however, may not meet the needs of some actually but one, or 95%). seeking diminished Council/Agency Board authority and responsibility for redevelopment, although it may constitute an acceptable compromise with others. 3. Elected C.C. adds 1 or more public members 3. This option may reduce the elected City Council/Agency Board authority and while it sits as CRA Board. These public responsibility for the redevelopment process by diluting the relative weight of each members could be voting or "ex -officio" elected vote, or, at least, by requiring a public discussion of non- elected member members. views. Project/activity time -lines and process cumbersomeness would increase as a result. This option may satisfy those seeking even more control over the financial and policy actions of redevelopment. 4. Elected C.C. delegates all or a portion of its 4. This option reduces the elected City Council/Agency Board authority and authority/ responsibility to an independent responsibility for the redevelopment process in whole or in part, depending upon board. the ordinance provisions providing the delegation. Total delegation maximizes the involvement of non-Council/Agency Board members. In accomplishing this, however, issues of accountability, responsibility, and the source of staff direction are raised. This option could provide for speedy project/activity completion if total delegation to an independent board were adopted; or; the slowest processing of activities if an unclear delegation were adopted. rampart\optionsl,tbl CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Donald Duckworth, Community Recovery Manager FROM: Mike Haviland, Economic Development Manager Vyto Adomaitis, CDBG Program Manager DATE: October 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Survey This memorandum is to provide you with a summary of staff research investigating organizational structures currently being utilized by other redevelopment agencies. Our research methodology was to directly contact all the redevelopment agencies in cities with populations over 75,000 within Los Angeles County. Also contacted were the redevelopment agencies of Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. We requested. information on the existence of any formalized reporting or advisory body to the respective redevelopment agencies. In total, we contacted 21 redevelopment agencies; summarized in attachment "A". The results of the summary are that overwhelmingly, redevelopment agencies do not have any permanent advisory bodies reporting to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board (RDA). The RDA is consistently the sole policy and decision making body for redevelopment activities. Of the 21 cities interviewed, Pasadena was the one exception to the north. Pasadena has an Advisory Community Development Committee (ACDC). The Pasadena ACDC has the authority to issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and makes recommendations regarding all RDA activities, including approval of designs, and development terms for private projects. Also, the ACDC reviews Pasadena's economic development, housing, and CDBG activities. Each member of the ACDC is appointed by a member of the City Council from each district of the City. This structure is unique and seems to represent the historical adaptation of a redevelopment program that had earlier been operated independent of the City Council by a separate board. The other common participation/advisory vehicle used in redevelopment agencies are Project Advisory Committees (PACs) as sometimes required by the California Redevelopment Law (CRL). Of the surveyed cities, 8 have PACs. We understand that conflicts between the CRL and the Fair Political Practices Commission conflict of interest regulations have thrown the usefulness of these groups into question. In addition, some cities have Relocation Appeal Boards which are not considered in our survey. In conclusion, the survey results of 21 redevelopment agencies demonstrates that redevelopment agencies are organized almost exclusively around the redevelopment agency board as the sole and exclusive decision making/policy making body responsible for the activities of the redevelopment program. cdbg%RDASMEM Appendix A Cities Surveyed For Redevelopment Organizational Structure City Formal Structure/Body Population Burbank No 98,678 Carson No 86,307 Compton No 91,609 Downey No 94,802 EI Monte No 110,965 Glendale No 190,192 Inglewood No 113,623 Lancaster No 115,524 Long Beach No 436,776 Norwalk No 97,303 Palmdale No 98,314 Pasadena Yes 134,824 (Advisory Community Dev. Committee) Santa Monica No 89,809 South Gate No 88,926 West Covina No 99,824 Whittier No 80,646 Torrance No 136,747 Pomona No 138,624 Thousand Oaks' - No 106,648 Simi Valley" No 100,889 Oxnard` No 143,781 'Denotes Jurisdictions in Ventura County PACs No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No ATTACHMENT IV CRA Citizen Involvement Communication Process Flow' Public Staff Task Integration w/ Public In ut Input Committee Gen. Plan & —� Input Approval p Budget 2 1 Each project proceeds at an individual pace 2 Finance and Program Integration with General Plan and Capital and Annual City Budget Improvement Program 3 Consultant/ Facilitator 4 Each Committee delegate to meet with City management to discuss integration of the plans. Newhall Revit. Task -Earthquake Committed Repair (Recovery Canyon • Hazard Country/ City Mitigation Saugus Revit. ency Task Management Board Public •Economic Committee3 Public Public Input Development and a Delagate Forum. Hearing Housing Task *Block Grant Committee from Each and -Finance Schools Task Committee 4 Approval Committee -Community Development Business Revit. Task Committee3 / 1 Each project proceeds at an individual pace 2 Finance and Program Integration with General Plan and Capital and Annual City Budget Improvement Program 3 Consultant/ Facilitator 4 Each Committee delegate to meet with City management to discuss integration of the plans. ATTACHMENT V CRA Bond Financing Projections (5%) I Per AB1290 r State mandated 20% set aside for housing 3 County 2% for Redevelpment Agency services (per AB2557) 4 First five years ®12% s Existing budget program and levels escalating at 5%/year. 6 Gross financing proceeds calculated using a 4 -year amortized issue ® 7%r interest in year #1, and a 24- year issue ® 7% interest in year #3. Source: GRC Copenhaver 7 Reserves equal to one year's debt service. Source: GRC Copenhaver Year 01 Year #2 Year #3 Year #4 Year #5 Totals Gross Tax Increment Funds $2,655,180 $5,440,915 $8,363,625 $11,430,044 $14.647,240 $42.537,004 xistin Taxin A en sSham' $531,036 $1,088,183 $1,672,725 $2,286,009 $2,929.448 _$8,507,401 State Mandated Housing ' $531,036 $1,088,183 $1,672,725 $2,286,009 $2,929,448 $292,945 $8,507,401 5850340 County Administration' $53,104 $108,818 $167,273 $228,601 City Administration' $318,622 $652,910 $1,003,635_ $1,371,605 $1,757,669 $5.104,441 Economic Development ' $179,200 $188,1601 $197,568 S207,446 $217,819 $990,193 Sub -Total Gross Financing Proceeds' $1,042,183 $3,530,093 $2,314,661 1 1 $3,649,700 r $41,859,623 $5,050,374 $6,519,912 R $18,576,829 $45,389,716 Bond Issuance Costs(@S%) $176,505 $2,092,981 _. --------- - $2,269,486 $4,691,882 Reserves? $1,042,183 S3,649,700 Redevelo mentPro ectsFunds $2,311,406 $36,116,942 $38,428,348 I Per AB1290 r State mandated 20% set aside for housing 3 County 2% for Redevelpment Agency services (per AB2557) 4 First five years ®12% s Existing budget program and levels escalating at 5%/year. 6 Gross financing proceeds calculated using a 4 -year amortized issue ® 7%r interest in year #1, and a 24- year issue ® 7% interest in year #3. Source: GRC Copenhaver 7 Reserves equal to one year's debt service. Source: GRC Copenhaver Possible Use of Projects Funds (All subject to public and Council review/approval): I. Earthquake Repair/Relief $13,708,800 Twenty Percent (20%) of Goal 1 (Goals and Programs description ® $68,544,000.00 II: Newhall Revitalization $12,100,000 *Plan Development $100,000 "Public Infrastructure/enhancement $6,000,000 *Business attraction/redevelopment $6,000,000 $12,100,000 111. Canyon Country Corridor Revitalization $8,000,000 `Public Infrastructure/enhancement $8,000,000 $8,000,000 IV. Joint Public Agency Projects $5,000,000 V. TOTAL PROJECTS $38,808,800 VI. TOTAL AVAILABLE PROJECTS FUNDS ($38,428,348) VII. DEFICIENCY $380,452 Note: Annual economic development support at existing budget program and levels included in gross tax increment before financing. See CRA Bond Financing Projections table. Page 2 City Proposed Settlement (5%) Forecast Total AV Incremental AV Taxing Gross Tau Agency Increment %a a RDA Total Tax Increment Housing Summation Setaside New RDA 10th Year Pro`ects Base $5 400 N/A $531,036 $1 088,183 $1,672,725 S2,z86,009 _ . ,$2,929,448 $3,604,525 $1,593,108 $3,264 549 $5,018,175 58 $6,858,027 $8,78_8,344 $10,813,575 $12,938,386 $15,167,675 $17,506,577 $11,346,856 $9,314,892 $10,516,356 $11,776,896 $13,099,416 $14,486,965 $15,942,739 .$17,470,094 $19,072_,549 $20,753,797 $22,517,711 $24,368,357 $26,310,000 $28,347,113 $30,484,391 $32,726,759 $35,079,384 $37,547,688 $40,137,358 $42,854,362 $45,704,962 93,500,000,000 $3 672,095,000 $3 852 651,911 $4 042,086,806 $9290 836,214 $4,449,358,130 $4,668,133,070 $4,897,665,173 $5,138,483,369 $5,391,1_42,597_ $5,665 18 ITF $265 18 000 52,655,180 20.00% $2,124,144 $5 944 120 $544 1520 $5,440,915 20.00% $4,352,732 $6 236 62 500 $836 62 500 $8,363,625 20.00% 56,690,900 $6 543004 444 $1143 444 $11,430,04420.00% $9,144,036 _ $6,86.4,723,973 $li464,723,973 $14,647,240 20.00% $11,717,792 6 99-00 $7,202,262,4W $1,802,262,450 $18,022,625 20.W% $14,418,100 7 00-01 $7,556,397,695 $2,156,397,695 $21,563,977 20.00% $17,251,182 $4,312,795 _$5,055,892 $5,835,526 $3,782,285 8 O1-02 $7,927,945,770 $2 527 945 770 $2S,279,458 20.W% $20,223,566 _ 9 02-03 $8 17 762 $2 917 762 63 00 $29 177 629 20.% $23,342,103 _ 10 0304 $5,391,142,S97 $1,891,142,597 $18,911,426 20.00% $15,129,141 _ 11 04-05 A656,225,078 078 $2156225 8 $21,562,251 36.80% $13,627,342 $4,3_12,450 12 05-06 $5,934,341,665 $2,434,341,665 $24,3U,417 36.80% $15,385,039 _ — _ $4,868,683 $5,452,266 96,064,544 _ $6,706,9_28 $7,380,898 $8,088,006 $8,829,884 13 06-07 $6,226,133,245 $2,726,133,245 $27,261,332K36.80% $17,229,162__ 14 07-08 $6 532 272 217 $3,032,272,217 $30,322,722 $19,163,960 _ __ 15 08.09 $6,853,464,041 $3,353,464,041 $33,534,640 $21,193,893 16 09-10 57,190 448 68 13,690,448,868 $36,904,489 $23,323,637 17 10-11 $7 544 239 $4,044,003,239 $40,440,032$25 558,100 18 11-12 $7914941 78 $4 414 941 78 $44,149 419 $27,902,433 19 12-13 $8,304,119,571 $4^119,571 $48,041,196 36.80% $30,362,036 . 59,608,239_ $10,424,866_ _ $11,281,647 $12,180,556 513,123,663 $14,113,144. $15,151,277 $16,240,456 $17,383,189 $18,582,110 $19,839,982 $21,159,704 20 13-14 $8,712,433,130 $5,212,433J30 $52,124,331 36.80% $32,942,577 21 14-15 $9,140,823,467 $5,640,823,467 $56,408,235 36.80% $35,650, _ 22 15.16 $9,590,277,757 $6,M277,757 $60,902,778 36.80% $38,490,555 23 16-17 $10,061 1,714 $6 561 1714 $65,618,317 36.80% $41,470,776 24 17-18 $10,556,571t979 $7,056,571,979 $70,565,720 36.80% $44,597,535_ 25 18 19 $11,075,638,624 $7,575,638,624 $75,756,386 36.80% _ $47,878,036 26 19-20 $11620 227,775 $8,120,227,775 $81202,278 36.80% $51,319,840 - 27 20-21 $12,191594,374 28 21-22 $12,791055,070 29 22-23__ $8,691,59 374 $86,915,944 36.80% $54,930 76-------- $9,291,055070$92,910 551 36.80% $58,719,468 _ _ $853,697,977 $9,919,991,248 _ 9_99,199,91_2 36.80%_ $62,694,345 __$13,419,991,248 30 23-24 $14 079 852,217 $10,579,852,217 $105,798,5 864,666