Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedevelopment Agency Financial Issues - Policies - Outstandi •t '��y 'Re"�41 y+yf y ,-X•: ' i'��� :i3T`ia`�p'-�;���.� -"__`""'� s.a•c-- . - ••�-_ � - t,' _ """3 - r, ..tom--'.""-�rm'�'Ss; �;'. ', �� rocar.. "?"•,�'�• 11 "~ ? ki .�o--� .?.����,y�•.,yr,�',��z•'-a!rt '�:i;`�. �-'s=��� i+` ..f �w�c�A4:2 "��"4S• .1!c'�.�-. ��a a:.4.. 9" � t �c.. .ti:• ti_.�.4 ,�kx. �} .. -�x.?s�., � .;-_i ��, i° � �_-'ti' :�-�� ,, ,„, •-� .: ";• •.,ram„_,•,•,,. ., ,�'- ` ����-�,,.��� a.'s.--- ..,.�-.�;.._ L. ,„ -. -, N_., ...`" -a t �a .. <„ ....._ ^,y�r,y,'z`�kL'..'.:::,.,•,:y,', ',:�:'�i"P"<:..t.y t�71.Td>w•,•�i.-srGtdC.:tir.�.: i.�-,` -.. --- --� _- -� ...:.. ..... - ,� ." � - 'M� �4:�G1='�� - �yam`==•'�'�"�.4-"'�5,''d�i„""^'^y'^�,�'.,-�:—,"`�=-'-J-�:�^'�="�� �- 1 Q • - - .. ��� ." �--'�vr�� ,.,�._,.,_�_,,es:.�:�" .c as.. ..i�-. - . ."x'- z a" -�-t� _ ,u - - ,,.,._ 1-. •:tea�� �. - .. .....:-'�'-'ate*,--�r^•+ r.:«.-^�dFnre�;,� _::;:¢,,.,�„�„ 4 ��..r �.•:-_ -� - ..-.�� - -� �"`. --__---,..:,,,na:-•.aiF� '`w,>..... _ ''r�,o..,�nn.--»-°�.�..ri::»W.•:,:`-_ - _ _ ����-��.. -";,:s.•�y�E^ - + CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interoffice Communication ' Economic Development Department TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: August 18,2003 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Financial Policy Issues/Questions The issue of Redevelopment Agency debt has been a topic of concern for many years. While Redevelopment Agency debt and financial history have been carefully documented since the 1995/96 fiscal year, some questions remained unanswered about prior years. The Administrative Services Department recently responded to a series of questions designed to address many of these historical gaps in information. These very complete responses, together with prior research, represent the best information available. Further research is not likely to result in additional information, or at least not at a level that would warrant additional investment of staff time or energy. As such, this information should be presented to the City Council to provide a comprehensive response to these lingering questions. It is suggested that the information be the topic of a future City Council Study Session, with the policy issues addressed through a Council action at a subsequent meeting. The goal being to "put to rest" past issues and establish a new basis for going forward. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the few remaining pieces of information needed and the policy issues to be addressed. Ocean View Estates 1. $39,210 in Redevelopment coach rental income went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 2. $197,095 in sales proceeds from Redevelopment-Agency owned coaches went to the OVE Fund. Should there be a transfer from the OVE Fund or a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 3. -owned$92,854.07 in much earlier sales proceeds from Redevelopment Agency coaches went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 4. OVE generated $1,695,789 in space rental through FY 01-02. This revenue was deposited into the General Fund. The operating costs for this same period have not yet been identified. Once it has been identified, and we can calculate the Net Operating Income, should this prior years' Net Operating Income be transferred from the General Fund as rent to the PA and DF? 5. Verify the net OVE Enterprise income is currently going to the PA and DF as rent. Emerald Cove The recent City Council actions on Emerald Cove addressed many of the issues related to this project. The ultimate goal now is the eventual sale of the property and the repayment of debt. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency Debt to the PA and DF proposed to be paid upon sale be reclassified as a debt of the Emerald Cove Fund since the Agency no longer owns the property and it has been conveyed it to the City? Business Development Expense The Redevelopment Agency has paid the operating expenses for the Business Development Division since its inception. Starting in Fiscal Year 01/02, the Business Development operating expense has been treated as an advance from the Redevelopment Agency and credited against Agency debt owed to the General Fund. 1. $2,886,474 has been advanced from FY 91-92 to FY 00-01. The City Council should authorize a credit against Redevelopment Agency debt for this updated number. 2. Should there also be an interest credit calculated for each year based upon the interest rate used for the Redevelopment debt in that year? Overhead Charges The Redevelopment Agency currently pays approximately $100,000 each year for accounting services. In 1989, there was $2,255,560 booked as Agency debt for a City overhead charge. In 1990, another $2,083,744 was added as debt for overhead in that year for a total of $4,339,304. Interest has accrued on this amount since the debt was booked. 1. Should these extremely high overhead charges, together with the annual accounting charge, be reclassified as overhead appropriate to the period of 1989-2003? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these re-spread charges? 3. Verify that there was no other overhead charges directly paid in subsequent years. Shank House The Redevelopment Agency-owned Shank House has been used exclusively as a police substation since it was acquired and rehabilitated. An April 2002 appraisal established that the fair market rent of the building would be $6,485/month or$77,820/year. 1. Should an annual rent payment be calculated for each year of occupancy and credited against Redevelopment Agency debt to the General Fund? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these annual rent credits? Capital Proiect Fund Debt The information provided by Administrative Services documents that this debt was due to the cost of City capital improvement projects in redevelopment areas that were made as part of the normal course of business being booked as Redevelopment Debt. 1. Should this debt be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future or should it and accrued interest be reclassified as an expenditure of the originating fund? Interest Rate Redevelopment Agency debt currently accrues interest at an annual rate equal to the average annual return for the year on the City's pooled investments. This represents the opportunity costs. In prior years, a much higher rate of interest was charged. 1. Should the total amount of accrued interest be recalculated using an annual rate equal to the average annual return for each year on the City's pooled investments? Land Acquisition /Debt A large portion of the Redevelopment Agency's debt owed to the City's General Fund is due to the Agency's acquisition of the Waterfront site from the City. The City, as the parent entity of the Redevelopment Agency, will inherit the Redevelopment Agency's assets at the end of its life. These assets will include all real property owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and include properties like the Hilton site with its ground rent, and the Hyatt site with its ground rent and participation rent. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency convey certain real property like the Downtown paseos to the City at current value or at cost and receive a credit against General Fund debt? 2. Should the Hilton parcel and the Hyatt parcel be conveyed to the City at their current values or acquisition cost, now rather than at the end of the Agency's life, and receive a credit against General Fund debt? Long-Term Debt Issues It is important that the Redevelopment Agency's debt be managed in a manner to ensure that all tax increment revenues can be collected over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan and State Law govern the duration that the Redevelopment Agency can collect tax increment for the repayment of debt. In particular, there .is a threshold after which the Redevelopment Agency can only collect tax increment for pre- AB 1290 debt. AB 1290 was the Redevelopment Reform Act adopted in 1994. The Administrative Services Department advises us that all post AB 1290 debt has now been repaid. As such, each dollar of debt repayment made for pre-AB 1290 debt will mean we will forgo an equal amount after the AB 1290 time limit is reached in approximately 2031. To the extent that there is Pre-AB 1290 debt remaining unpaid after 2031, tax increment revenue can continue to be collected until this debt is fully repaid as long as it is within the $850 million cumulative cap on tax increment. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency has a few non-property tax increment revenue sources, including ground rent, transient occupancy taxes and participation payments. To the extent these revenues are used to repay pre-AB 1290 debt, additional future property tax increment will be forgone. Long-term cash flow prepared which will assist us in analyzing these issues and the draft is currently being updated to reflect recent debt repayments. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency increase its capital project and/or operating expenditures and reduce its Pre AB 1290 debt repayment to ensure no tax increment revenues are forgone? 2. Should non-tax increment revenues be set aside for capital or other operating expenses? 3. Should the Agency utilize only its tax increment revenues as the repayment source for obligations like repayment of Hyatt Developer Advance, including non-Hyatt generated tax increment, in lieu of non-tax increment revenues? 4. Should the Redevelopment Agency / City division of transient occupancy tax be rescinded with the TOT revenue reverting to the City in order to obligate additional tax increment? (Need to ensure we meet contractual obligations to developers.) As a point of reference, in FY 2001-02, the City's "contribution" or 15% share of property tax increment would have been $933,450. This compares to the $1,700,000 in debt repayment made to the General Fund in the same year. In addition, Redevelopment Agency facilitated projects directly add revenues to the City's General Fund each year. For example, the City share of Transient Occupancy Tax for the current fiscal year through June for the Hilton and from its opening in January through June for the Hyatt has totaled $592,000. DCB Attachment 2 Updated Short Terre z Cush Flow r Mr. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development Ms. Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH August 19, 2003 Page 2 INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS Alternatively, if the Agency increases annual advance repayments to $5 million annually, the entire advance could be repaid by fiscal year 2020-21, and the Agency could have more than $134 million of unencumbered tax increment revenue available. This letter is accompanied by a series of spreadsheets showing the amount of revenue and debt service payments from fiscal year 2002-03 through 2033-34. Each spreadsheet is labeled at the bottom right-hand corner. The one-page summary (Overview) references more detailed spreadsheets that follow. The entire package of attachments consists of the following spreadsheets: ■ Overview (1 page) ■ Revenue and Expenditure Summary (3 pages) ■ (Tax Increment) Projections and Pass Throughs (6 pages) ■ Other Revenues (1 page) ■ ERAF Loans (1 page) ■ Debt Service and DDA Payments (1 page) ■ Administrative Costs (1 page) ■ City Advances and Loans (2 pages) BACKGROUND Between 1982 and 1984, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach established five noncontiguous redevelopment project areas. In 1996, the Agency merged these five areas into a single Project Area and Redevelopment Plan to enable the Agency to more freely move funds among the constituent project areas. Tax increment revenue is paid to the Agency from the Project Area, based on the amount of debt incurred by the Agency. As a result of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan in 2002, the Agency may incur new debt in perpetuity. As of July 2003, the Agency has incurred a variety of debt obligations to fund project costs, meet obligations to affected taxing agencies, and operate the Agency. In 1993, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1290, which in part established definitive 50-year time limit on the collection of tax increment revenue for all preexisting redevelopment plans. Accordingly, the Agency's time limit on the collection of tax increment revenue from the Project Mr. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development Ms. Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH August 19, 2003 Page 3 Area is November 26, 20341. However, pursuant to Section 33333.6(g) of the Health and Safety Code, this time limit only applies to obligations authorized by the City Council or Agency prior to January 1, 1994. Indeed, many of the Agency's current obligations were authorized before January 1994. For these obligations, the Law implies that the Agency may collect tax increment revenue after the November 2034 time limit. The following list identifies the existing debts of the Project Area: ■ Taxing. Agency Payments consist of several fiscal mitigation agreements executed between the Agency and affected taxing agencies prior to January 1994, as well as statutory payments to other taxing agencies that were incurred after the amendment and merger in 1996. ■ Bond Debt Service Payments are comprised of the Agency's 1999 Tax Allocation Refunding Bond debt service, and debt service on the 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, originally incurred in 1988. ■ ERAF Payments relate to the actual 2002-03 shift mandated by the State, plus an estimate of the amount that could be shifted in 2003-04. ■ DDA/OPA Payments involve the Terry Buick repayment incurred prior to January 1994,and three additional developer obligations incurred since January 1994, namely involving Mayer/Waterfront Hilton, the Bella Terra project, and the Strand project. ■ HUD Section 108 Loan payments relate to.a loan from the federal government for capital improvements incurred in calendar year 2000. ■ Agency Administrative Costs are ongoing administrative costs incurred and paid annually. ■ City Advances involve both obligations incurred prior to January 1994 and after that date. It is noteworthy that staff estimates that all of the post-January 1994 City advances will be paid off by the end of fiscal year 2002-03, and that the all remaining City advances would relate to those incurred prior to January 1994. ANALYSIS In consultation with Agency staff, RSG prepared a revenue and expenditure forecast to fiscal year 2033-34 for this analysis. The forecast incorporates the following assumptions: Each constituent area of the merged Project Area has a different time limit, based upon the date each constituent redevelopment plan was adopted. The time limit to collect tax increment revenue is reached in some areas as early as September 2032, and fully sunsets by November 2034. Mr. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development Ms. Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH August 19, 2003 Page 4 Tax Increment Revenue: Starting with the equalized 2002-03 assessed values reported by the Orange County Auditor-Controller, RSG conservatively assumed that all Project Areas would experience a,2% annual increase in secured roll values. In addition to this secured roll growth rate, RSG added $141.1 million in new construction value on the roll in the Huntington Center constituent area in 2004-05 and 2005-06 for the Bella Terra project, accounted for the entire $179 million Hyatt project and $144.6 million for the Waterfront residential project in the Main- Pier Added constituent area, and another $46 million in the Main Pier Original constituent area in 2004-05 for the Strand project. Unsecured and nonunitary utility values were held constant. Gross tax increment was computed using only the 1% general tax levy; based on past trends, we also excluded unitary utility revenue and override levy property taxes since these revenues are offset by County administrative fees. Housing set aside deposits were assumed to be maintained at 20% of gross tax increment revenues and were entirely excluded from this analysis. Other Revenues: Agency staff provided RSG with forecasts of other non-tax increment revenues used by the Agency to repay debts. These revenues include the following: ■ Waterfront Hilton Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues ■ Waterfront Hilton ground lease revenues ■ Waterfront Interim rent payments ■ Hyatt Ocean Grand TOT and ground lease revenues ■ Abdelmuti Owner Participation Agreement Loan repayments ■ The Strand TOT and parking revenues ■ Bella Terra sales tax revenues used to meet a portion of the development reimbursement payment ■ 438 Main Street lease payments and subsequent property sale proceeds ■ Mola settlement proceeds Bond Debt Service Payments: The Agency is currently responsible for two bond debt payments, including the Agency's 1999 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds and 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds. Both amounts are repaid based upon fixed debt service schedules, which were used in the expenditure forecast. Taxing Agency Payments: The Agency has several fiscal mitigation agreements with certain taxing agencies that require a pass through of some tax increment revenues. In addition to these obligations, the 1996 amendment and merger of the Redevelopment Plan prompted additional "statutory" payments to other taxing agencies, pursuant to Sections 33607.5 and 33607.7 of the Health and Safety Code. These obligations fluctuate based on the amount of tax increment revenue generated by the Project Area. (�: 4 ' 1 • Mr. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development Ms. Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH August 19, 2003 Page 5 ERAF Loan/Repayment: The Legislature shifted a portion of Agency tax increment revenues to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in fiscal year 2002-03, and is proposing a similar (potentially larger) shift in 2003-04. The exact amounts of the Agency's 2003-04 obligation is not known, but based on recent proposals are assumed to be equal to approximately 200% of the amount paid in 2002-03. Developer/Owner Participation Reimbursements: The Agency has three reimbursements due to property owners and developers for completed redevelopment projects. These obligations are known as the Mayer loan, HUD Section 108 Loan, and the Terry Buick mortgage, Bella Terra developer advance, and The Strand developer advance. Staff estimated the terms and payment amounts of these obligations. Agency Administration Costs: Based on staff direction, RSG assumed that business development costs and other administrative charges would increase in proportion to the amount of net nonhousing tax increment revenue. The Agency is receiving credit against the City advances for its business development expenditures annually. City Advance and Loan Obligations: The City has advanced funds from its General Fund and other funds from time-to-time to facilitate Project implementation. RSG estimated future repayment-of these obligations by amortizing the outstanding balance at a 4.57% interest rate (as was used in 2002-03). The annual payment consists of credit for the business development - expenditures of the Agency (described above), plus an additional principal and interest payment. The additional payment for 2002-03 and 2003-04 was estimated by staff, and assumed to grow by 3.5% annually thereafter. We hope this information is helpful and are available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. James C. Simon Principal JCS:Imi SCENARIO 1 TABLES *ASSUMES $2.0 MILLION ANNUAL ADVANCE PAYMENTS i Long Term L—ji Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 20u- + Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Pre 1/94 Debts Post 1/94 Debts Total REVENUE Nonhousing Tax Increment $ 404,092,189 Other Revenue 105,395,641 Total Revenue $ 509,487,830 DEBT PAYMENTS Taxing Agency Payments $ 17,869,518 $ 73,849,711 $ 91,719,229 Bond Debt Service 32,492,178 14,902,770 47,394,948 DISPOSITION OF NET REVENUE COLLECTED THROUGH 2O34 ERAF Loan/Repayment - 622,773 622,773 If Agency Collects If Agency Wants DDA/OPA Payments 322,000 55,710,739 56,032,739 Additional Tax to Pay off All HUD Section 108 Loan - 10,030,137 10,030,137 Increment Beyond Debts By 2034 Agency Administration - 27,271,235 27,271,235 2034 to Pay Balance Regardless of Subtotal $ 50,683,696 $ 182,387,365 $ 233,071,061 of Pre-1994 City Ability to Continue Advances to Collect Revenue City Advances $ 140,023,169 $ 1,999,000 $ 142,022,169 Balance of City Net Revenue $ 134,394,601 $ 134,394,601 Advances at Termination 84,915,618 - 84,915,618 City Advances Paid Before 2034 - 84,915,618 _ of Redevelopment Plan Total Debt Payments $ 190,706,865 $ 184,386,365 $ 375,093,230 Remainder for Projects $ 134,394,601 $ 49,478,982 NET REVENUE(Total Revenue minus Debt Payments) $ 134,394,601 City Advances Paid After 2034 $ 84,915,618 $ - Available for Projects and/or Balance of City Advance BREAKDOWN OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE UNDER REVENUE CAP Revenue Cap in Plan $ 850,000,000 Amount Received (Through 2001-02) $ 96,296,629 Projected Housing&Nonhousing Revenue 505,115,236 Total $ 601,411,865 Revenue Under Ca $ 248,588,135 N Overview RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8/18/03 4:51 PM Page 1 of 1 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year Nonhousing Revenues Post-1/94 Debt'Payments(Excluding City Advances) Remaining Tax.Agency 1999 TARB DDA/OPA HUD Sec 108 New ERAF Admin Total Nonhousing 80%Tax Inc. Other Total Payments Payments Loan Repayment (Non BD) Revenue Base 1 2002-03 5,928,341 2,784,719 8,713,059 183,071 739,969 1,120,000 600,071 207,591 605,235 3,455,936 5,257,123 2 2003-04 6,063,278 2,496,805 8,560,083 196,660 737,809. 1,120,000 602,244 415,182 490,000 3,561,895 4,998,188 3 2004-05 7,691,102 4,087,851 11,778,954 594,185 740,969 3,428,827 603,301 - 596,000 5,963.283 5,815,671 4 2005-06 9,352,237 3,753,332 13,105,569 1,061,943 743,239 3,443,025 598,307 - 691,000 6,537,514 6,568,055 5 2006-07 10,139,093 3,748,759 13,887,851 1,290,216 744,589 3,457,539 597,621 - 734,000 6,823,965 7,063,886 6 2007-08 10,358,246 3,744,201 14,102,446 1,347,817 744,989 3,472,379 600,654 - 747,000 6,912,840 7,189,606 7 2008-09 10,581,781 3,739,663 14,321,444 1,406,571 739,789 3,487,553 597,249 - 760,000 6,991,161 7,330,283 8 2009-10 10,809,788 3,650,018 14,459,806 1,466,500 743,799 3,503,067 597,814 - 773,000 7,084,180 7,375,626 9 2010-11 11,042,355 3,390,157 14,432,512 1,531,342 746,579 3,518,932 596,215 - 786,000 7,179,067 7,253,445 10 2011-12 11,279,573 3,385,704 14,665,277 1,595,462 748,089 3,535,154 592,971 - 800,000 7,271,676 7,393,600 11 2012-13 11,521,535 3,381,289 14,902,823 1,660,864 743,289 2,909,745 587,733 - 814,000 6,715,630 8,187,193 12 2013-14 11,768,337 3,376,916 15,145,252 1,733,333 747,364 2,448,711 585,720 - 828,000 6,343,127 8,802,125 13 2014-15 12,020,074 3,372,591 15,392,665 1,834,658 749,824 2,466,063 581,627 - 840,000 6,472,172 8,920,493 14 2015-16 12,276,847 3,368,319 15,645,166 1,948,996 750,619 2,483,811 580,395 - 851,000 6,614,820 9,030,345 15 2016-17 12,538,754 3,364,107 15,902,861 2,065,620 749,699 2,501,964 576,606 - 862,000 6,755,888 9,146,973 16 2017-18 12,805,900 3,359,960 16,165,860 2,184,577 752,155 2,520,531 570,229 - 873,000 6,900,493 9,265,367 17 2018-19 13,078,389 3,355,884 16,434,273 2,305,914 753,000 2,387,796 561,382 - 885,000 6,893,091 9,541,182 18 2019-20 13,356,328 3,351,886 16,708,214 2,429,677 461,750 1,581,075 - - 897,000 5,369,502 11,338,712 19 2020-21 13,639,825 3,347,973 16,987,799 2,555,915 458,500 1,581,075 - - 909,000- 5,504,490 11,483,309 20 2021-22 13,928,993 3,344,152 17,273,145 2,684,678 464,500 1,581,075 - - 921,000 5,651,253 11,621,892 21 2022-23 14,223,944 3,340,431 17,564,374 2,816,016 464,250 1,581,075 - - 934,000 5,795,341 11,769,033 22 2023-24 14,524,793 3,337,083 17,861,877 2,949,981 378,000 1,581,342 - - 947,000 5,856,323 12,005,554 23 2024-25 14,831,660 3,191,135 18,022,795 3,086,625 - - - - 960,000 4,046,625 13,976,170 24 2025-26 15,144,664 3,216,538 18,361,202 3,226,003 - - - - 973,000 4,199,003 14,162,200 25 2026-27 15,463,929 3,242,649 18,706,578. 3,369,632 - - - - 987,000 4,356,632 14,349,946 26 2027-28 15,789,578 3,269,489 19,059,067 3,516,134 - - - - 1,001,060 4,517,134 14,541,933 27 2028-29 16,121,741 3,297,079 19,418,820 3,665,566 - - - - 1,015,000 4,680,566 14,738,254 28 2029-30 16,460,546 3,325,442 19,785,988 3,817,987 - - - - 1,029,000 4,846,987 14,939,002 29 2030-31 16,806,128 2,669,699 19,475,827 3,975,136 - - - - 1,044,000 5,019,136 14,456,692 30 2031-32 17,158,622 2,684,846 19,843,468 4,135,428 - - - - 1,059,000 5,194,428 14,649,040 31 2032-33 13,550,582 2,700,448 16,251,030 3,540,016 - - - - 824,000 4,364,016 11,887,013 32 2033-34 13,835,227 2,716,517 16,551,744 3,673,191 - - - - 836,000 4,509,191 12,042,552 404,092,189 105,395,641 509,487,830 73,849,711 14,902,770 55,710,739 10,030,137 622,773 27,271,235 182,387,365 327,100,465 T C� Revenue and Expenditur- Summary RSG, -tcast.xls 8l18103 4:53PM a 1 of 3 Long Ter.. ;Ot Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in J4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year Pre-1/94 Debt Payments(Excluding Administration and City Advances) Remaining Taxing Agency ERAF Loans DDA/OPA 2002 TA Total Nonhousing Payments Payments Ref. Bonds Revenue Base 1 2002-03 232,922 - 322,000 1,613.084 2,168,006 3,089,117 2 2003-04 241,759 - - 1,609,805 1,851,564 3,146,624 3 2004-05 250,843 - - 1,606,055 1,856,898 3,958,773 4 2005-06 351,010 - - 1,611,930 1,962,940 4,605,115 5 2006-07 412,112 - - 1,613,230 2,025,342 5,038,544 6 2007-08 424,801 - - 1,616,743 2,041,544 5,148,062 7 2008-09 437,804 - - 1,612,168 2,049,972 5,280,311 8 2009-10 451,126 - - 1,621,718 2,072,844 5,302,782 9 2010-11 464,771 - - 1,622,593 2,087,364 5,166,080 10 2011-12 478,744 - - 1,635,738 2,114,482 5,279,118 11 2012-13 493,049 - - 11640,938 2,133,987 6,053,206 12 2013-14 507,692 - - 1,638,038 2,145,730 6,656,395 13 2014-15 522,676 - 1,627,138 2,149,814 6,770,679 14 2015-16 538,008 - - 1,644,750 2,182,758 6,847,588 15 2016-17 553,692 - - 1,640,750 2,194,442 6,952,531 16 2017-18 569,734 - - 1,639,000 2,208,734 7,056,633 17 2018-19 586,141 - - 1,649,250 2,235,391 7,305,792 18 2019-20 602,917 - - 1,010,750 1,613,667 9,725,046 19 2020-21 620,069 - - 1,010,750 1,630,819 9,852,490 20 2021-22 637,603 - - 1,003,750 1,641,353 9,980,539 21 2022-23 655,526 - - 1,005,000 1,660,526 10,106,508 22 2023-24 673,844 - - 819,000 1,492,844 10,512,710 23 2024-25 692,563 - - - 692,563 13,283,607 24 2025-26 711,692 - - - 711,692 13,450,508 25 2026-27 731,236 - - - 731,236 13,618,710 26 2027-28 751,204 - - - 751,204 13,790,729 27 2028-29 771,602 - - 771,602 13,966,652 28 2029-30 792,439 - - - 792,439 14,146,562 29 2030-31 813,722 - - - 813,722 13,642,969 30 2031-32 835,460 - - - 835,460 13,813,580 31 2032-33 525,706 - - - 525,706 11,361,308 32 2033-34 537,050 - - - 537,050 11,505,502 17,869,518 - 322,000 32,492,178 50,683,696 276,416,769 -� Revenue and Expenditure Summary RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8/18/03 4:53 PM Page 2 of 3 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year City Advance Payments Post-1994 Remaining Pre-1994 Remaining Nonhousing Nonhousing Base 1 2002-03 405,000 2,684,117 7,139,085 (4,454,968) 2 2003-04 - 3,146,624 2,396,084 750,540 3 2004-05 - 3,958,773 2,582,000 1,376,773 4 2005-06 1,594,000 3,011,115 2,759,000 252,115 5 2006-07 - 5,038,544 2,894,000 2,144,544 6 2007-08 - 5,148,062 3,004,000 2,144,062 7 2008-09 - 5,280,311 3,115,000 2,165,311 8 2009-10 - 5,302,782 3,226,000 2,076,782 9 2010-11 - 5,166,080 3,337,000 1,829,080 10 2011-12 - 5,279,118 3,448,000 1,831,118 11 2012-13 - 6,053,206 3,559,000 2,494,206 12 2013-14 - 6,656,395 3,670,000 2,986,395 13 2014-15 - 6,770,679 3,780,000 2,990,679 14 2015-16 - 6,847,588 3,889,000 2,958,588 15 2016-17 - 6,952,531 3,998,000 2,954,531 16 2017-18 - 7,056,633 4,107,000 2,949,633 17 2018-19 - 7,305,792 4,216,000 3,089,792 18 2019-20 - 9,725,046 4,326,000 5,399,046 19 2020-21 - 9,852,490 4,436,000 5,416,490 20 2021-22 - 9,980,539 4,546,000 5,434,539 21 2022-23 - 10,108,508 4,656,000 5,452,508 22 2023-24 - 10,512,710 4,766,000 5,746,710 23 2024-25 - 13,283,607 4,877,000 8,406,607 24 2025-26 - 13,450,508 4,988,000 8,462,508 25 2026-27 - 13,618,710 5,099,000 8,519,710 26 2027-28 - 13,790,729 5,310,000 8,480,729 27 2028-29 - 13,966,652 5,521,000 8,445,652 28 2029-30 - 14,146,562 5,733,000 8,413,562 29 2030-31 - 13,642,969 5,945,000 7,697,969 30 2031-32 - 13,813,580 6,157,000 7,656,580 31 2032-33 - 11,361,308 6,167,000 5,194,308 32 2033-34 - 11,505,502 6,377,000 5,128,502 1,999,000 274,417,770 140,023,169 134,394,601 O -Revenue and Expenditur- "--mmary RSG, -ist.xls 8/18103 4:53 PM 3 of 3 Long Ten .Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2L 4 Huntington beach Redevelopment Project Huntington Center Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Bella Terra Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Subtotal Statutory Total 2% Development . 06% 0.19610_ Payments Base 64,272,972 12,930,438 77,203,410 2000-01 151,451,849 31,339,865_ 182,791,714 2002-03 186,026,471 34,675,462 220,701,933 143,498,523 1,434,985 1,147,988 140,118 - 140,118 1 2003-04 189,747,000. 34,675,462 224,422,462 147,219,052 1,472,191 1,177,752 143,751 - 143,751 2 2004-05 193,541,940 91,200,000 34,675,462 228,217,402 151,013,992 1,510,140 1,208,112 147,457 - 147,457 3 2005-06 290,436,779 49,900,000 34,675,462 325,112,241 247,908,831 2,479,088 1,983,271 242,069 155,788 397,857 4 2006-07 347,143,515 34,675,462 381,818,977 304,615,567 3,0.46,156 2,436,925 297,440 246,961 544,401 5 2007-08 354,086,385 34,675,462 388,761,847 311,558,437 3,115,584 2,492,467 304,219 258,124 562,343 6 2008-09 361,168,113 34,675,462 395,843,575 318,640,165 3,186,402 2,549,121 311,134 269,510 580,644 7 2009-10 368,391,475 34,675,462 403,066,937 325,863,527 3,258,635 2,606,908 318,187 281,123 599,311 8 2010-11 375,759,305 34,675,462 410,434,767 333,231,357 3,332,314 2,665,851 325,382 292,969 618,351 9 2011-12 383,274,491 34,675,462 417,949,953 340,746,543 3,407,465 2,725,972 332,720 305,052 637,772 10 2012-13 390,939,980 34,675,462 425,615,442 348,412,032 3,484,120 2,787,296 340,205 317,377 657,581 11 2013-14 398,758,780 34,675,462 433,434,242 356,230,832 3,562,308 2,849,847 347,839 329,948 677,787 12 2014-15 406,733,956 34,675,462 441,409,418 364,206,008 3,642,060 2,913,648 355,627 342,770 698,397 13 2015-16 414,868,635 34,675,462 449,544,097 372,340,687 3,723,407 2,978,725 363,570 366,836 730,405 14 2016-17 423,166,008 34,675,462 . 457,841,470 380,638,060 3,806,381 3,045,104 371,671 391,382 763,054 15 2017-18 431,629,328 34,675,462 466,304,790 389,101,380 3,891,014 3,112,811 379,935 416,420 796,355 16 2018-19 440,261,914 34,675,462 474,937,376 397,733,966 3,977,340 3,181,872 388,365 441,958 830,323 17 2019-20 449,067,152 34,675,462 483,742,614 406,539,204 4,065,392 3,252,314 396,962 468,007 864,969 18 2020-21 458,048,496 34,675,462 492,723,958 415,520,548 4,155,205 3,324,164 405,732 494,577 900,309 19 2021-22 467,209,465 34,675,462- 501,884,927 424,681,517 4,246,815 3,397,452 414,677 521,678 936,356 20 2022-23 476,553,655 34,675,462 511,229,117 434,025,707 4,340,257 3,472,206 423,802 549,322 973,123 21 2023-24 486,084,728 34,675,462 520,760,190 443,556,780 4,435,568 3,548,454 433,108 577,518 1,010,626 22 2024-25 495,806,422 34,675,462 530,481,884 453,278,474 4,532,785 3,626,228 442,601 606,278 1,048,879 23 2025-26 506,722,551 34,675,462 540,398,013 463,194,603 4,631,946 3,705,557 452,283 635,614 1,087,897 24 2026-27 515,837,002 34,675,462 550,512,464 473,309,054 4,733,091 3,786,472 462,169 665,536 1,127,695 25 2027-28 526,153,742 34,675,462 560,829,204 483,625,794 4,836,258 3,869,006 472233 696,056 1,168,290 26 2028-29 536,676,817 34,675,462 571,352,279 494,148,869 4,941,489 3,953,191 482:508 727,187 1,209,696 27 2029-30 547,410,353 34,675,462 582,085,815 504,882,405 5,048,824 4,039,059 492,989 758,941 1,251,930 28 2030-31 558,358,560 34,675,462 593,034,022 515,830,612 5,158,306 4,126,645 503,679 791,330 1,295,009 29 2031-32 569,525,731 34,675,462 604,201,193 526,997,783 5,269,978 4,215,982 514,583 824,366 1,338,950 30 2032-33 580,916,246 34,675,462 . 615,591,708 538,388,298 5,383,883 4,307,106 525,706 858,063 1,383,769 31 2033-34 592,534,571 34,675,462 627,210,033 550,006,623 5,500,066 4,400,053 537,050 892,434 1,429,485 98,887,562 12,069,763 14,483,125 26,552,887 Projections and Pass Throughs Rsc,Inc. forecastAs 8/18/03 4:51 PM Page 1 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main Pier Annex Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Hyatt& Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% Waterfront Res. 0% 0.0081883 Payments Base 40,583,263 8,766,986 49,350,249 2000-01 267,744,122 5,491,452 273,235,574 2002-03 418,302,593 6,672,092 424,974,685 375,624,436 3,756,244 3,004,995 - - 1 2003-04 426,668,645 182,621,036 6,672,092 433,340,737 383,990,488 3,839,905 3,071,924 - - 2 2004-05 621,475,474 45,513,448 6,672,092 628,147,566 578,797.317 5,787,973 4,630,379 - 386,423 3 2005-06 680,328,701 21,600,000 6,672,092 687,000,793 637,650,544 6,376,505 5,101,204 - 503,166 4 2006-07 715,967,275 6,672,092 722,639,367 673,289,118 6,732,891 5,386,313 - 573,860 5 2007-08 730,286,620 6,672,092 736,958,712 687,608,463 6,876,085 5,500,868 - 602,264 6 2008-09 744,892,353 6,672,092 751,564,445 702,214,196 7,022,142 5,617,714 - 631,236 7 2009-10 759,790,200 6,672,092 766,462,292 717,112,043 7,171,120 5,736,896 - 660,788 8 2010-11 774,986,004 6,672,092 781,658,096 732,307,847 7,323,078 5,858,463 - 690,930 9 2011-12 790,485,724 6,672,092 797,157,816 747,807,567 7,478,076 5,982,461 - 721,676 10 2012-13 806,295,438 6,672,092 812,967,530 763,617,281 7,636,173 6,108,938 - 753,037 11 2013-14 822,421,347 6,672,092 829,093,439 779,743.190 7,797,432 6,237,946 - 785,024 12 2014-15 838,869,774 6,672,092 845,541,866 796,191,617 7,961,916 6,369,533 - 845,059 13 2015-16 855,647,170 6,672,692 862,319,262 812,969,013 8,129,690 6,503,752 - 906,294 14 2016-17 872,760,113 6,672,092 879,432,205 830,081,956 8,300,820 6,640,656 - 968,754 15 2017-18 890,215,315 6,672,092 896,887,407 847,537,158 8,475,372 6,780,297 - 1,032,463 16 2018-19 908,019,622 6,672,092 914,691,714 865,341,465 8,653,415 6,922,732 - 1,097,447 17 2019-20 926,180,014 6,672,092 932,852,106 883,501,857 8,835,019 7,068,015 - 1,163,730 18 2020-21 944,703,614 6,672,092 951,375,706 902,025,457 9,020,255 7,216,204 - 1,231,338 19 2021-22 963,597,687 6,672,092 970,269,779 920,919,530 9,209,195 7,367,356 - 1,300,299 20 2022-23 982,869,640 6,672,092 989,541,732 940,191,483 9,401,915 7,521,532 - 1,370,639 21 2023-24 1,002,527,033 6,672,092 1,009,199,125 959,848,876 9,598,489 7,678,791 - 1,442,386 22 2024-25 1,022,577,574 6,672,092 1,029,249,666 979,899,417 9,798,994 7,839,195 - 1,515,568 23 2025-26 1,043,029,125 6,672,092 1,049,701,217 1,000,350,968 10,003,510 8,002,808 - 1,590,213 24 2026-27 1,063,889,708 6,672,092 1,070,561,800 1,021,211,551 10,212,116 8,169.692 - 1,666,352 25 2027-28 1,085,167,502 6,672,092 1,091,839,594 1,042,489,345 10,424,893 8,339,915 - 1,744,013 26 2028-29 1,106,870,852 6,672,092 1,113,542,944 1,064,192,695 10,641,927 8,513,542 - 1,823,227 27 2029-30 1,129,008,269 6,672,092 1,135,680,361 1,086,330,112 10,863,301 8,690,641 - 1,904,026 28 2030-31 1,151,588,434 6,672,092 1,158,260,526 1,108,910,277 11,089,103 8,871,282 - 1,986,440 29 2031-32 1,174,620,203 6,672,092 1,181,292,295 1,131,942,046 11,319,420 9,055,536 - 2,070,503 30 2032-33 1,198,112,607 6,672,092 1,204,784,699 1,155,434,450 11,554,345 9,243,476 - 2,156,247 31 2033-34 1,222,074,859 6,672,092 1,228,746,951 1,179,396,702 11,793,967 9,435,174 - 2,243,707 218,468,228 36,367,110 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,h -ast.xls 8118/03 4:51 PM 2 of 6 Long T abt Analysis-Assuming $2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting it -04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main Pier Original Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured The Strand Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% Development 0% 0.0081882 Payments Base 4,007,363 1,686,785 5,694,148 2000-01 72,972,691 7,691,243 80,663,934 2002-03 80,626,088 8,477,757 89,103,845 83,409,697 834,097 667,278 - - 1 2003-04 82,238,610 8,477,757 90,716,367 85,022,219 850,222 680,178 - 3,199 2 2004-05 83,883,382 46,000,000 8,477,757 92,361,139 86,666,991 866,670 693,336 - 6,461 3 2005-06 132,481,050 8,477,757 140,958,807 135,264,659 1,352,647 1,082,117 - 102,861 4 2006-07 135,130,671 8,477,757 143,608,428 137,914,280 1,379,143 1,103,314 - 108,117 5 2007-08 137,833,284 8,477,757 146,311,041 140,616,893 1,406,169 1,124,935 - 113,478 6 2008-09 140,589,950 8,477,757 149,067,707 143,373,559 1,433,736 1,146,988 - 118,946 7 2009-10 143,401,749 8,477,757 151,879,506 146,185,358 1,461,854 1,169,483 - 124,523 8 2010-11 146,269,784 8,477,757 154,747,541 149,053,393 1,490,534 1,192,427 - 130,212 9 2011-12 149,195,179 8,477,757 157,672,936 151,978,788 1,519,788 1,215,830 - 136,015 10 2012-13 152,179,083 8,477,757 160,656,840 154,962,692 1,549,627 1,239,702 - 141,934 11 2013-14 155,222,665 8,477,757 163,700,422 158,006,274 1,580,063 1,264,050 - 153,043 12 2014-15 158,327,118 8,477,757 166,804,875 161,110,727 1,611,107 1,288,886 - 164,374 13 2015-16 161,493,660 8,477,757 169,971,417 164,277,269 1,642,773 1,314,218 - 175,931 14 2016-17 164,723,533 8,477,757 173,201,290 167,507,142 . 1,675,071 1,340,057 - 187,720 15 2017-18 168,018,004 8,477,757 176,495,761 170,801,613 1,708,016 1,366,413 - 199,744 16 2018-19 171,378,364 8,477,757 179,856,121 174,161,073 1,741,620 1,393,296 - 212,009 17 2019-20 174,805,931 8,477,757 183,283,688 177,589,540 1,775,895 1,420,716 - 224,519 18 2020-21 178,302,050 8,477,757 186,779,807 181,085,659 1,810,857 1,448,685 - 237,280 19 2021-22 181,868,091 8,477,757 190,345,848 184,651,700 1,846,517 1,477,214 - 250,295 20 2022-23 185,505,453 8,477,757 193,983,210 188,289,062 1,882,891 1,506,312 - 263,571 21 2023-24 189,215,562 8,477,757 197,693,319 191,999,171 1,919,992 1,535,993 - 277,112 22 2024-25 192,999,873 8,477,757 201,477,630 195,783,482 1,957,835 1,566,268 - 290,925 23 2025-26 196,859,871 8,477,757 205,337,628 199,643,480 1,996,435 1,597,148 - 305,013 24 2026-27 200,797,068 8,477757 209,274,825 203,580,677 2,035,807 1,628,645 - 319,383 25 2027-28 204,813,009 8,477:757 213,290,766 207,596,618 2,075,966 1,660,773 - 334,041 26 2028-29 208,909,270 8,471,757 217,387,027 211,692,879 2,116,929 1,693,543 - 348,992 27 2029-30 213,087,455 8,477,757 221,565,212 215,871,064 2,158,711 1,726,969 - 364,242 28 2030-31 217,349,204 8,477,757 225,826,961 220,132,813 2,201,328 1,761,063 - 379,797 29 2031-32 221,696,188 8,477,757 230,173,945 224,479,797 2,244,798 1,795,838 - 395,662 40,101,676 6,069,399 X WProjections and Pass Throughs RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8i18f03 4:51 PM Page 3 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Oakview Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Subtotal Statutory 2% 0% 0.768174 Payments Base 22,847,771 434,862 23,282,633 2000-01 63,685,839 11,982,954 75,668,793 2002-03 72,327,545 5,579,896. 77,907,441 54,624,808 546,248 436,998 92,804 - 1 2003-04 73,774,096 5,579,896 79,353,992 56,071,359 560,714 448,571 98,008 671 2 2004-05 75,249,578 5,579,896 80,829,474 57,546,841 575,468 460,375 103,387 1,355 3 2005-06 76,754,569 5,579,896 82,334,465 59,051,832 590,518 472,415 108,941 2,053 4 2006-07 78,289,661 5,579,896 83,869,557 60,586,924 605,869 484,695 114,672 2,764 5 2007-08 79,855,454 5,579,896 85,435,350 62,152,717 621,527 497,222 120,582 3,490 6 2008-09 81,452,563 5,579,896 87,032,459 63,749,826 637,498 509,999 126,670 4,231 7 2009-10 83,081,614 5,579,896 88,661,510 65,378,877 653,789 523,031 132,939 4,986 8 2010-11 84,743,247 5,579,896 90,323,143 67,040,510 670,405 536,324 139,390 5,757 9 2011-12 86,438,112 5,579,896 92,018,008 68,735,375 687,354 549,883 146,025 6,542 10 2012-13 88,166,874 5,579,896 93,746,770 70,464,137 704,641 563,713 152,845 7,344 11 2013-14 89,930,211 5,579,896 95,510,107 72,227,474 722,275 577,820 159,852 8,848 12 2014-15 91,728,815 5,579,896 97,308,711 74,026,078 740,261 592,209 167,049 10,383 13 2015-16 93,563,392 5,579,896 99,143,288 75,860,655 758,607 606,885 174,438 11,948 14 2016-17 95,434,660 5,579,896 101,014,556 77,731,923 777,319 621,855 182,020 13,544 15 2017-18 97,343,353 5,579,896 102,923,249 79,640,616 796,406 637,125 189,799 15,173 16 2018-19 99,290,220 5,579,896 104,870,116 81,587,483 815,875 652,700 197,776 16,834 17 2019-20 101,276,024 5,579,896 106,855,920 83,573,287 835,733 668,586 205,954 18,528 18 2020-21 103,301,545 5,579,896 108,881,441 85,598,808 855,988 684,790 214,337 20,256 19 2021-22 105,367,576 5,579,896 110,947,472 87,664,839 876,648 701,319 222,926 22,018 20 2022-23 107,474,927 5,579,896 113,054,823 89,772,190 897,722 718,178 231,724 23,816 21 2023-24 109,624,426 5,579,896 115,204,322 91,921,689 919,217 735,374 240,736 25,650 22 2024-25 111,816,914 5,579,896 117,396,810 94,114,177 941,142 752,913 249,962 27,520 23 2025-26 114,053,252 5,579,896 119,633,148 96,350,515 963,505 770,804 259,408 29,428 24 2026-27 116,334,318 5,579,896 121,914,214 98,631,581 986,316 789,053 269,077 31,374 25 2027-28 118,661,004 5,579,896 124,240,900 100,958,267 1,009,583 807,666 278,971 33,359 26 2028-29 121,034,224 5,579,896 126,614,120 103,331,487 1,033,315 826,652 289,094 35,384 27 2029-30 123,454,908 5,579,896 129,034,804 105,752,171 1,057,522 846,017 299,450 37,449 28 2030-31 125,924,007 5,579,896 131,503,903 108,221,270 1,082,213 865,770 310,043 39,555 29 2031-32 128,442,487 5,579,896 134,022,383 110,739,750 1,107,397 885,918 320,876 41,704 19,224,860 5,799,755 501,963 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Ir estAs 8118/03 4:51 PM 4 of 6 Long T bt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting ir. 04 Huntingi,_ each Redevelopment Project Talbert-Beach Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% 0% 0.0075264 Payments Base 812,622 776,832 1,589,454 2000-01 37,094,428 1,918,322 39,012,750 37,423,296 374,233 299,386 2002-03 44,271,172 930,689 45,201,861 43,612,407 436,124 348,899 - 12,657 1 2003-04 45,156,595 930,689 46.087,284 44,497,830 444,978 355,983 - 17,086 2 2004-05 46,059,727 930,689 46,990,416 45,400,962 454,010 363,208 - 18,844 3 2005-06 46,980,922 930,689 47,911,611 46,322,157 463,222 370,577 - 20,636 4 2006-07 47,920,540 930,689 48,851,229 47,261,775 472,618 378,094 - 22,465 5 2007-08 48,878,951 930,689 49,809,640 48,220,186 482,202 385,761 - 24,330 6 2008-09 . 49,856,530 930,689 50,787,219 49,197,765 491,978 393,582 - 26,232 7 2009-10 50,853,661 930,689 51,784,350 50,194,896 501,949 401,559 - 28,173 8 2010-11 51,870,734 930,689 52,801,423 51,211,969 512,120 409,696 - 33,867 9 2011-12 52,908,149 930,689 53,838,838 52,249,384 522,494 417,995 - 37,655 10 2012-13 53,966,312 930,689 54,897,001 53,307,547 533,075 426,460 - 41,520 11 2013-14 55,045.638 930,689 55,976,327 64,386,873 543,869 435,095 - 45,462 12 2014-15 56,146,551 930,689 57,077,240 55,487,786 554,878 443,902 - 49,483 13 2015-16 57,269,482 930,689 58,200,171 56,610,717 566,107 452,886 - 53,584 14 2016-17 58,414,871 930,689 59,345,560 57,756,106 577,561 462,049 - 57,768 15 2017-18 59,583,169 930,689 60,513,858 58,924,404 589,244 471,395 - 62,035 16 2018-19 60,774,832 930,689 61,705,521 60,116,067 601,161 480,929 - 66,387 17 2019-20 61,990,329 930,689 62,921,018 61,331,564 613,316 490,653 - 70,826 18 2020-21 63,230,135 930,689 64,160,824 62,571,370 625,714 500,571 - 75,355 19 2021-22 64,494,738 930,689 65,425,427 63,835,973 638,360 510,688 - 79,973 20 2022-23 65,784,633 930,689 66,715,322 65,125,868 651,259 521,007 - 84,684 21 2023-24 67,100,325 930,689 68,031,014 66,441,560 664,416 531,532 - 89,490 22 2024-25 68,442,332 930,689 69,373,021 67,783,567 677,836 542,269 - 94,391 23 2025-26 69,811,179 930,689 70,741,868 69,152,414 691,524 553,219 - 99,390 24 2026-27 71,207,402 930,689 72,138,091 70,548,637 705,486 564,389 - 104,490 25 2027-28 72,631,550 930,689 73,562,239 71,972,785 719,728 575,782 - 109,691 26 2028-29 74,084,181 930,689 75,014,870 73,425,416 734,254 587,403 - 114,997 27 2029-30 75,565,865 930,689 76,496,554 74,907,100 749,071 599,257 - 120,408 28 2030-31 77,077,182 930,689 78,007,871 76,418,417 764,184 611,347 - 127,608 29 2031-32 78,618,726 930,689 79,549,415 77,959,961 779,600 623,680 - 134,952 14,209,868 1,924,439 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Inc. forecast.xls e/18ro3 a:si FM Page 5 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Yorktown-Lake Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% 0% 0.0081878 Payments Base 1,165,499 635,117 1,800,616 2000-01 37,848,645 495,406 38,344,051 2002-03 41,806,889 266,428 42,073,317 40,272,701 402,727 322,182 - 30,295 1 2003-04 42,643,027 266,428 42,909,455 41,108,839 411,088 328,871 - 31,954 2 2004-05 43,495,887 266,428 43,762,315 41,961,699 419,617 335,694 - 33,646 3 2005-06 44,365,805 266,428 44,632,233 42,831,617 428,316 342,653 - 35,371 4 2006-07 45,253,121 266,428 45,519,549 43,718,933 437,189 349,751 - 38,610 5 2007-08 46,158,184 266,428 46,424,612 44,623,996 446,240 356,992 - 41,913 6 2008-09 47,081,347 266,428 47,347,775 45,547,159 455,472 364,377 - 45,283 7 2009-10 48,022,974 266,428 48,289,402 46,488,786 464,888 371,910 - 48,719 8 2010-11 48,983,434 266,428 49,249,862 47,449,246 474,492 379,594 - 52,225 9 2011-12 49,963,102 266,428 50,229,530 48,428,914 484,289 387,431 - 55,801 10 2012-13 50,962,364 266,428 51,228,792 49,428,176 494,282 395,425 - 59,448 11 2013-14 51,981,612 266,428 52,248,040 50,447,424 504,474 403,579 - 63,168 12 2014-15 53,021,244 266,428 53,287,672 51,487,056 514,871 411,896 - 66,962 13 2015-16 54,081,669 266,428 54,348,097 52,547,481 525,475 420,380 - 70,833 14 2016-17 55,163,302 266,428 55,429,730 53,629,114 536,291 429,033 - 74,781 15 2017-18 56,266,568 266,428 56,532,996 54,732,380 547,324 437,859 - 78,807 16 2018-19 57,391,900 266,428 57,658,328 55,857,712 558,577 446,862 - 82,915 17 2019-20 58,539,738 266,428 58,806166 57,005,550 570,055 456,044 - 87,104 18 2020-21 59,710,532 266,428 59,976:960 58,176,344 581,763 465,411 - 91,377 19 2021-22 60,904,743 266,428 61,171,171 59,370,555 593,706 474,964 - 95,736 20 2022-23 62,122,838 266,428 62,389,266 60,588,650 605,886 484,709 - 100,182 21 2023-24 63,365,295 266,428 63,631,723 61,831,107 618,311 494,649 - 104,717 22 2024-25 64,632,600 266,428 64,899,028 63,098,412 630,984 504,787 - 109,342 23 2025-26 65,925,253 266,428 66,191,681 64,391,065 643,911 515,129 - 114,060 24 2026-27 67,243,758 266,428 67,510,186 65,709,570 657,096 525,677 - 120,337 25 2027-28 68,588,633 266,428 68,855,061 67,054,445 670,544 536,436 - 126,740 26 2028-29 69,960,405 266,428 70,226,833 68,426,217 684,262 547,410 - 133,271 27 2029-30 71,359,613 266,428 71,626,041 69,825,425 698,254 558,603 - 139,932 28 2030-31 72,786,806 266,428 73,053,234 71,252,618 712,526 570,021 - 146,726 29 2031-32 74,242,542 266,428 74,508,970 72,708,354 727,084 581,667 - 153,656 13,199,996 2,433,912 Projections and Pasr Throughs ,c�� RSG,' astAs 8118/03 4:51 PM ,6 of 6 Long Term Da talysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003- Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year T.O.T. Hyatt Hyatt Abdelmuti Hilton Waterfront The Strand The Strand Bella Terra Lease/ Mola Total (Waterfront) TOT Ground Loan Lease/RLM Interim TOT Parking Sales Sale Settlement Lease Ground Lease Rent Revenue Revenue Taxes (438 Main) 2002-03 795,000 447,600 23,775 340,505 110,340 110,340 901,538 55,621 2,784,719 2003-04 795,000 1,059,000 75,000 340,505 113,650 113,650 2,496,805 2004-05 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 .340,505 117,059 117,060 220,752 185,000 942,675 4,087,851 2005-06 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 120,571 120,571 222,960 190,550 593,375 3,753,332 2006-07 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 124,188 124;189 225,189 196,267 573,621 3,748,759 2007-08 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 127,914 127,914 227,441 202,154 553,472 3,744,201 2008-09 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 131,751 131,752 229,715 208,219 532,920 3,739,663 2009-10 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 255,375 135,704 135,704 232,013 214,466 511,957 3,650,018 2010-11 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 139,775 139,775 234,333 220,900 490,574 3,390,157 2011-12 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 143,968 143,969 236,676 227,527 468,764 3,385,704 2012-13 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 148,287 148,288 239,043 234,352 446,518 3,381,289 2013-14 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 152,736 152,736 241,433 241,383 423,827 3,376,916 2014-15 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 157,318 157,318 243,848 248,625 400,682 3,372,591 2015-16 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 162,038 162,038 246,286 256,083 377,074 3,368,319 2016-17 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 166,899 166,899 248,749 263,766 352,994 3,364,107 2017-18 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 171,906 171,906 251,236 271,679 328,433 3,359,960 2018-19 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 177,063 177,063 253,749 279,829 303,380 3,355,884 2019-20 795,000 1,219,800. 150,000 - 182,375 182,375 256,286 288,224 277,826 3,351,886 2020-21 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 187,846 187,846 258,849 296,871 251,761 3,347,973 2021-22 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 193,481 193,482 261,438 305,777 225,175 3,344,152 2022-23 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 199,286 199,286 264,052 314,950 198,057. 3,340,431 2023-24 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 205,264 205,265 266,692 324,399 170,663 3,337,083 2024-25 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 211,422 211,423 269,359 334,131 - 3,191,135 2025-26 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 217,765 217,765 272,053 344,154 - 3,216,538 2026-27 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 224,298 224,298 274,774 354,479 - 3,242,649 2027-28 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 231,027 231,027 277,521 365,114 - 3,269,489 2028-29 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 237,958 237,958 280,296 376,067 - 3,297,079 2029-30 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 245,097 245,097 283,099 387,349 - 3,325,442 2030-31 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 252,449 252,450 - 2,669,699 2031-32 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 260,023 260,023 - 2,684,846 2032-33 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 267,824 267,824 - 2,700,448 2033-34 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 275,858 275,859 2,716,517 25,440,000 38,100,600 4,598,775 2,638,910 5,793,143 5,793,153 6,517,842 7,132,313 8,423,747 901,538 55,621 105,395,641 ` Other Revenues �.7 RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8/18103 4:51 PM Page 1 of 1 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year 2002-03 Potential Future Total ERAF ERAF Pmts ERAF Payments Estimated Payments 2002-03 207,591 - 207,591 2003-04 - 415,182 415,182 2004-05 - - - 2005-06 - - 2006-07 - - - 2007-08 - - - 2008-09 - - - 2009-10 - - - 2010-11 - - - 2011-12 - - 2012-13 - - - 2013-14 - - - 2014-15 - - - 2015-16 - - - 2016-17 - - - 2017-18 - - - 2018-19 - - - 2019-20 - - - 2020-21 - - - 2021-22 - - - 2022-23 - - - 2023-24 - - - 2024-25 - - - 2025-26 - - - 2026-27 - - - 2027-28 - - - 2028-29 - - - 2029-30 - - - 2030-31 - - - 2031-32 - - - 2032-33 - - 2033-34 - - - TOTAL 207,591 415,182 622,773 2002-03 Payment based on actual cost. Future payments subject to ongoing State budget process. Recent proposals in the legislature calls for a$135 million ERAF payment from redevelopment agencies statewide,which is rougly twice the$75 million taken in 2002-03. Fc'AF Loans OO RSG ast.xfs 8/18103 4:51 PM 1 1 of 1 Long Teri. ,t Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2 4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year 1999 TA 2002 TA HUD Sec. DDA and OPA Debt Service Payments Total Refunding Ref. Bonds 108 Loan Terry Buick Mayer Bella Terra The Strand TOTAL Debt Svc& Bonds (Pre-1/94) (Pre 1/94) (Post 1/94) (Post 1/94) (Post 1/94) DDA Pmts 2002-03 739,969 1,613,084 600,071 1 322,000 1,120,000 1,442,000 4,395,124 2003-04 737,809 1,609,805 602,244 ` 1,120,000 1,120,000 4,069,858 2004-05 740,969 1,606,055 603,301 1,120,000 1,581,075 727,752 3,428,827 6,379,152 2005-06 743,239 1,611,930 598,307 1,120,000 1,581,075 741,950 3,443,025 6,396,501 2006-07 744,589 1,613,230 597,621 1,120,000 1,581,075 756,464 3,457,539 6,412,980 2007-08 744,989 1,616,743 600,654 € 1,120,000 1,581,075 771,304 3,472,379 6,434,766 2008-09 739,789 1,612,168 597,249 1,120,000 1,581,075- 786,478 3,487,553 ' 6,436,758 2009-10 743,799 1,621,718 597,814 1,120,000 1,581,075 801,992 3,503,067 6,466,398 2010-11 746,579 1,622,593 596,215 i 1,120,000 1,581,075 817,857 3,518,932 6,484,318 2011-12 748,089 1,635,738 592,971 1,120,000 1,581,075 834,079 3,535,154 6,511,952 2012-13 743,289 1,640,938 587,733 478,000 1,581,075 850,670 2,909,745 5,881,704 2013-14 747,364 1,638;038 585,720 - 1,581,075 867,636 2,448,711 € 5,419,833 2014-15 749,824 1,627,138 581,627 - 1,581,075 884,988 2,466,063 5,424,652 2015-16 750,619 1,644,750 580,395 € - 1,581,075 902,736 2,483,811 5,459,575 2016-17 749,699 1,640,750 576,606 - 1,581,075 920,889 2,501,964 5,469,018 2017-18 752,155 1,639,000 570,229 - 1,581,075 939,456 2,520,531 5,481,915 2018-19 753,000 1,649,250 561,382 € - 1,581,075 806,721 2,387,796 5,351,427 2019-20 461,750 1,010,750 - 1,581,075 1,581,075 3,053,575 2020-21 458,500 1,010,750 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 € 3,050,325 2021-22 464,500 1,003,750 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 € 3,049,325 2022-23 464,250 1,005,000 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 3,050,325 2023-24 378,000 819,000 - 1,581,342 - 1,581,342 2,778,342 2024-25 - - - - - 2025-26 - - - - - 2026-27 - - - - - 2027-28 - - - - - 2028-29 - - - - - 2029-30 - - - - 2030-31 - - - - - 2031-32 - - - - - 2032-33 - - - - - 2033-34 - - - - - TOTAL 14,902,770 32,492,178 10,030,137 322,000 11,678,000 31,621,767 12,410,972 56,032,739 113,457,824 Figures provided by Redevelopment Agency staff. -9 Debt Service&DDA Payments RSG.Inc. forecastAs 8/18/03 4:50 PM Page 1 of 1 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Post 1/94 Debt Pre 1/94 Debt Payments Payments Projected Administrative Costs /1 Base 80%Tax Inc. Taxing Agency Taxing Agency Remaining Non- Business Other Total Payments Payments Housing Revenue Development Administration 1 2002-03 5,928,341 183,071 232,922 5,512,348 464,210 605,235 1,069,445 2 2003-04 6,063,278 196,660 241,759 5,624,859 396,084 490,000 886,084 3 2004-05 7,691,102 594.185 250,843 6,846,074 482,000 596,000 1,078,000 4 2005-06 9,352,237 1,061,943 351,010 7,939,284 559,000 691,000 1,250,000 5 2006-07 10,139,093 1,290,216 412,112 8,436,765 594,000 734.000 1,328,000 6 2007-08 10,358,246 1,347,817 424,801 8,585,627 604,000 747,000 1,351,000 7 2008-09 10,581,781 1,406,571 437,804 8,737,406 615,000 760,000 1,375,000 8 2009-10 10,809,788 1,466,500 451,126 8,892,162 626,000 773,000 1,399,000 9 2010-11 11,042,355 1,531,342 464,771 9,046,241 637,000 786,000 1,423,000 10 2011-12 11,279,573 1,595,462 478,744 9,205,367 648,000 800,000 1,448,000 11 2012-13 11,521,535 1,660,864 493,049 9,367,621 659,000 814,000 1,473,000 12 2013-14 11,768,337 1,733,333 507,692 9,527,312 670,000 828,000 1,498,000 13 2014-15 12,020,074 1,834,658 522,676 9,662,741 680,000 840,000 1,520,000 14 2015-16 12,276,847 1,948,996 538,008 9,789,843 689,000 851,000 1,540,000 15 2016-17 12,538,754 2,065,620 553,692 9,919,442 698,000 862,000 1,560,000 16 2017-18 12,805,900 2,184,577 569,734 10,051,589 707,000 873,000 1,580,000 17 2018-19 13,078,389 2,305,914 586,141 10,186,335 716,000 885,000 1,601,000 18 2019-20 13,356,328 2,429,677 602,917 10,323,735 726,000 897,000 1,623,000 19 2020-21 13,639,825 2,555,915 620,069 10,463,842 736,000 909,000 1,645,000 20 2021-22 13,928,993 2,684,678 637,603 10,606.712 746,000 921,000 1,667,000 21 2022-23 14,223,944 2,816,016 655,526 10,752,402 756,000 934,000 1,690,000 22 2023-24 14,524,793 2,949,981 673,844 10,900,969 766,000 947,000 1,713,000 23 2024-25 14,831,660 3,086,625 692,563 11,052,472 777,000 960,000 1,737,000 24 2025-26 15,144,664 3,226,003 711,692 11,206,970 788,000 973,000 1,761,000 25 2026-27 15,463,929 3,369,632 731,236 11,363,060 799,000 987,000 1,786,000 26 2027-28 15,789,578 3,516,134 751,204 11,522,240 810,000 1,001,000 1,811,000 27 2028-29 16,121,741 3,665,566 771,602 11,684,572 821,000 1,015,000 1,836,000 28 2029-30 16,460,546 3,817,987 792,439 11,850,121 833,000 1,029,000 1,862,000 29 2030-31 16,806,128 3,975,136 813,722 12,017,270 845,000 1,044,000 1,889,000 30 2031-32 17,158,622 4,135,428 835,460 12,187,734 857,000 1,059,000 1,916,000 31 2032-33 13,550,582 3,540,016 . 525,706 9,484,860 667,000 824,000 1,491,000 32 2033-34 13,835,227 3,673,191 537,050 9,624,985 677,000 836,000 1,513,000 TOTAL 404,092,189 73,849,711 17,869,518 312,372,960 22,048,294 27,271,235 49,319,529 1/ 2002-03 and 2003-04 figures estimated by Agency staff. Future costs Projected to grow at same rate of nonhousing tax increment revenue. Business Development Costs are credited against City debt payments. Adminis ve Costs RSC -ecast.xls 8118103 4:50 PM e 1 of 1 Long Te; ,t Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in. A Huntington rseach Redevelopment Project Consolidated PRE-1994 DEBTS TO CITY FUNDS Current Balances Fiscal Year Beg. Bal Payments on Pre 1/1994 City Debts End. Bal. 4.57% Bus. Dev. Additional Total General&Administrative Advances 1983-84 65,506 2002-03 94,617,299 464,210 6,674,875 7,139,085 87,478,213 1984-85 2,639,981 2003-04 87,478,213 396,084 2,000,000 2,396,084 88,970,383 1985-86 1,421,814 2004-05 .88,970,383 482,000 2,100,000 2,582,000 90,336,332 1986-87 5,380,112 2005-06 90,336,332 559,000 2,200,000 2,759,000 91,579,616 1987-88 6,158,284 2006-07 91,579,616 594,000 2,300,000 2,894,000 92,738,548 1988-89 2,636,245 2007-08 92,738,548 604,000 2,400,000 3,004,000 93,835,417 1989-90 6,495,355 2008-09 93,835,417 615,000 2,500,000 3,115,000 94,866,340 1990-91 1,042,202 2009-10 94,866,340 626,000 2,600,000 3,226,000 95,828,304 1991-92 278,099 2010-11 95,828,304 637,000 2,700,000 3,337,000 96,718,157 1992-93 119,557 2011-12 96,718,157 648,000 2,800,000 3,448,000 97,532,603 Bus. Dev.Credit (2,886,473) 2012-13 97,532,603 659,000 2,900,000 3,559,000 98,268,196 City Land Purchase Advances 2013-14 98.268,196 670,000 3,000,000 3,670,000 98,921,334 1983-84 828,994 2014-15 98,921,334 680,000 3,100,000 3,780,000 99,489,293 1986-87 2,511,046 2015-16 99,489,293 689,000 3,200,000 3,889,000 99,969,226 1987-88 52,880,194 2016-17 99,969,226 698,000 3,300,000 3,998,000 100,357,111 1988-89 4,117,147 2017-18 100,357,111 707,000 3,400,000 4,107,000 100,648,741 1990-91 4,638,660 2018-19 100,648,741 716,000 3,500,000 4,216,000 100,839,718 Credit in 02-03 (3,566,003) 2019-20 100,839,718 726,000 3,600,000 4,326,000 100,924,395 Water Fund Advances 2020-21 100,924,395 736000 3,700,000 4,436,000 100,897,914 1985-86 386,559 2021-22 100,897,914 746:000 3,800,000 4,546,000 100,755,197 1986-87 2,473,385 2022-23 100,755,197 756,000 3,900,000 4,656,000 100.490,930 Other Advances 2023-24 100,490,930 766,000 4,000,000 4,766,000 100,099,559 Gas Tax 1,279,875 2024-25 100,009,559 777,000 4,100,000 4,877,000 99,574,230 Drainage Fund 487,023 2025-26 99,574,230 788,000 4,200,000 4,988,000 98,908,821 Sewer Fund 202,084 2026-27 98,908,821 799,000 4,300,000 5,099,000 98,096,930 Capital Fund 466,103 2027-28 98,096,930 810,000 4,500.000 5,310,000 97,027,292 Emerald Cove 4,011;846 2028-29 97,027,292 821,000 4,700,000 5,521,000 95,688,130 Deferred Fees 792,703 2029-30 95,688,130 833,000 4.900,000 5,733,000 94,066,079 Park Fee Credit (243,000) 2030-31 94,066,079 845,000 5,100,000 5,945,000 92,148,213 TOTAL 94,617.299 2031-32 92,148,213 857,000 5,300,000 6,157,000 89,921,011 (As of Sept.30, 2002) 2032-33 89,921,011 667,000 5,500,000 6.167,000 87,581,569 2033-34 87,581,569 677,000 5,700,000 6,377,000 84,915,618 TOTAL 22,048,294 117,974,875 140,023,169 City Advances&Loans RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8/18103 4:50 PM Page 1 of 2 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated POST-1994 DEBTS TO CITY FUNDS Current Balances Fiscal Year Beg. Bal Payment End. Bal. General&Administrative Advances 1995-96 405,000 2002-03 1,999,000 405,000 1,594,000 Other Debts 2003-04 1,594,000 - 1,594,000 ERAF Loar 731,000 2004-05 1,594,000 - 1,594,000 Housing 863,000 2005-06 1,594,000 1,594,000 - TOTAL 1,999,000 2006-07 - - - (As of Sept. 30, 2002) 2007-08 - - - 2008-09 - - - 2009-10 - - 2010-11 - - - 2011-12 - - - 2012-13 - - - 2013-14 - - - 2014-15 - - - 2015-16 - - - 2016-17 - - - 2017-18 - - - 2018-19 - - - 2019-20 - - - 2020-21 - - - 2021-22 - - - 2022-23 - - - 2023-24 - - - 2024-26 - - - 2025-26 - - - 2026-27 - - - 2027-28 - - - 2028-29 - - - 2029-30 - - - 2030-31 - - - 2031-32 - - - 2032-33 - - - 2033-34 - - - TOTAL 1,999,000 .� City Advance! Loans �RSG,Ir :tAs 8/18103 4:50 PM 2 of 2 SCENARIO 2 TABLES *ASSUMES $5.0 MILLION ANNUAL ADVANCE PAYMENTS Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Pre 1/94 Debts Post 1/94 Debts Total REVENUE Nonhousing Tax Increment $ 404,092,189 Other Revenue 105,395,641 Total Revenue $ 509,487,830 DEBT PAYMENTS Taxing Agency Payments $ 17,869,518 $ 73,849,711 $ 91,719,229 Bond Debt Service 32,492,178 14,902,770 47,394,948 DISPOSITION OF NET REVENUE COLLECTED THROUGH 2O34 ERAF Loan/Repayment - 622,773 622,773 If Agency Collects If Agency Wants DDA/OPA Payments 322,000 55,710,739. 56,032,739 Additional Tax to Pay off All HUD Section 108 Loan - 10,030,137 10,030,137 Increment Beyond Debts By 2034 Agency Administration - 27,271,235 27,271,235 2034 to Pay Balance Regardless of Subtotal $ 50,683,696 $ 182,387,365 $ 233,071,061 of Pre-1994 City Ability to Continue Advances to Collect Revenue City Advances $ 134,654,109 $ 1,999,000 $ 136,653,109 Balance of City Net Revenue $ 139,763,661 $ 139,763,661 Advances at Termination - - - City Advances Paid Before 2034 - - of Redevelopment Plan Total Debt Payments $ 185,337,805 $ 184,386,365 $ 369,724,170 Remainder for Projects $ 139,763,661 $ 139,763,661 NET REVENUE(Total Revenue minus Debt Payments) $ 139,763,661 City Advances Paid After 2034 $ - $ - Available for Projects and/or Balance of City Advance BREAKDOWN OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE UNDER REVENUE CAP Revenue Cap in Plan $ 850,000,000 Amount Received (Through 2001-02) $ 96,296,629 Projected Housing &Nonhousing Revenue 505,115,236 Total $ 601,411,865 Revenue Under Ca $ 248,588,135 Overview RSG, cast.xls 8/18103 4:49 PM 1 1 of 1 Long T :bt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting ir. -04 Huntingt,.. -)each Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year Nonhousing Revenues Post-1/94 Debt Payments(Excluding City Advances) Remaining Tax.Agency 1999 TARB DDA/OPA HUD Sec 108 New ERAF Admin Total Nonhousing 80%Tax Inc. Other Total Payments Payments Loan Repayment (Non BD) Revenue Base 1 2002-03 5,928,341 2,784,719 8,713,059 183,071 739,969 1,120,000 600,071 207,591 605,235 3,455,936 5,257,123 2 2003-04 6,063,278 2,496,805 8,560,083 196,660 737,809 1,120,000 602,244 415,182 490,000 3,561,895 4,998,188 3 2004-05 7,691,102 4,087,851 11,778,954 594,185 740,969 3,428,827 603,301 - 596,000 5,963,283 5,815,671 4 2005-06 9,352,237 3,753,332 13,105,569 1,061,943 743,239 3,443,025. 598,307 - 691,000 6,537,514 6,568,055 5 2006-07 10,139,093 3,748,759 13,887,851 1,290,216 744,589 3,457,539 597,621 - 734,000 6,823,965 7,063,886 6 2007-08 10,358,246 3,744,201 14,102,446 1,347,817 -744,989 3,472,379 600,654 - 747,000 6,912,840 7,189,606 7 2008-09 10,581,781 3,739,663 14,321,444 1,406,571 739,789 3,487,553 597,249 - 760,000 6,991,161 7,330,283 8 2009-10 10,809,788 3,650,018 14,459,806 1,466,500 743,799 3,503,067 597,814 - 773,000 7,084,180 7,375,626 9 2010-11 11,042,355 3,390,157 14,432,512 1,531,342 746,579 3,518,932 596,215 - 786,000 7,179,067 7,253,445 10 2011-12 11,279,573 3,385,704 14,665,277 1,595,462 748,089 3,535,154 592,971 - 800,000 7,271,676 7,393,600 11 2012-13 11,521,535 3,381,289 14,902,823 1,660,864 743,289 2,909,745 587,733 - 814,000 6,715,630 8,187,193 12 2013-14 11,768,337 3,376,916 15,145,252 1,733,333 747,364 2,448,711 585,720 - 828,000 6,343,127 8,802,125 13 2014-15 12,020,074 3,372,591 15,392,665 1,834,658 749,824 2,466,063 581,627 - 840,000 6,472,172 8,920,493 14 2015-16 12,276,847 3,368,319 15,645,166 1,948,996 750,619 2,483,811 580,395 - 851,000 6,614,820 9,030,345 15 2016-17 12,538,754 3,364,107 15,902,861 2,065,620 749,699 2,501,964 576,606 - 862,000 6,755,888 9,146,973 16 2017-18 12,805,900 3,359,960 16,165,860 2,184,577 752,155 2,520,531 570,229 - 873,000 6,900,493 9,265,367 17 2018-19 13,078,389 3,355,884 16,434,273 2,305,914 753,000 2,387,796 561,382 - 885,000 6,893,091 9,541,182 18 2019-20 13,356,328 3,351,886 16,708,214 2,429,677 461,750 1,581,075 - - 897,000 5,369,502 11,338,712 19 2020-21 13,639,825 3,347,973 16,987,799 2,555,915 458,500 1,581,075 - - 909,000 5,504,490 11,483,309 20 2021-22 13,928,993 3,344,152 17,273,145 2,684,678 464,500 1,581,075 - - 921,000 5,651,253 11,621,892 21 2022-23 14,223,944 3,340,431 17,564,374 2,816,016 464,250 1,581,075 - - 934,000 5,795,341 11,769,033 22 2023-24 14,524,793 3,337,083 17,861,877 2,949,981 378,000 1,581,342. - - 947,000 5,856,323 12,005,554 23 2024-25 14,831,660 3,191,135 18,022,795 3,086,625 - - - - 960,000 4,046,625 13,976,170 24 2025-26 15,144,664 3,216,538 18,361,202 3,226,003 - - - - 973,000 4,199,003 14,162,200 25 2026-27 15,463,929 3,242,649 18,706,578. 3,369,632 - - - - 987,000 4,356,632 14,349,946 26 2027-28 15,789,578 3,269,489 19,059,067 3,516,134 - - - - 1,001,000 4,517,134 14,541,933 27 2028-29 16,121,741 3,297,079 19,418,820 3,665,566 - - - - 1,015,000 4,680,566 14,738,254 28 2029-30 16,460,546 3,325,442 19,785,988 3,817,987 - - - - 1,029,000 4,846,987 14,939,002 29 2030-31 16,806,128 2,669,699 19,475,817 3,975,136 - - - - 1,044,000 5,019,136 14,456,692 30 2031-32 17,158,622 2,684,846 19,843,468 4,135,428 - - - - 1,059,000 5,194,428 14,649,040 31 2032-33 13,550,582 2,700,448 16,251,030 3,540,016 - - - - 824,000 4,364,016 11,887,013 32 2033-34 13,835,227 2,716,517 16,551,744 3,673,191 - - - - 836,000 4,509,191 12,042,552 404,092,189 105,395,641 509,487,830 73,849,711 14,902,770 55,710,739 10,030,137 622,773 27,271,235 182,387,365 327,100,465 �S Revenue and Expenditure Summary RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8118/03 4:54 PM Page 1 of 3 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year Pre-1/94 Debt Payments(Excluding Administration and City Advances) Remaining Taxing Agency ERAF Loans DDA/OPA 2002 TA Total Nonhousing Payments Payments Ref. Bonds Revenue Base 1 2002-03 232,922 - 322,000 1,613,084 2,168,006 3,089,117 2 2003-04 241,759 - - 1,609,805 1,851,564 3,146,624 3 2004-05 250,843 - - 1,606,055 1,856,898 3,958,773 4 2005-06 351,010 - - 1,611,930 1,962,940 4,605,115 5 2006-07 412,112 - - 1,613,230 2,025,342 5,038,544 6 2007-08 424,801 - - 1,616,743 2,041,544 5,148,062 7 2008-09 437,804 - - 1,612,168 2,049,972 5,280,311 8 2009-10 451,126 - - 1,621,718 2,072,844 5,302,782 9 2010-11 464,771 - - 1,622,593 .2,087,364 5,166,080 10 2011-12 478,744 - - 1,635,738 2,114,482 5,279,118 11 2012-13 493,049 - - 1,640,938 2,133,987 6,053,206 12 2013-14 507,692 - - 1,638,038 2,145,730 6,656,395 13 2014-15 522,676 - - 1,627,138 2,149,814 6,770,679 14 2015-16 538,008 - - 1,644,750 2,182,758 6,847,588 15 2016-17 553,692 - - 1,640,750 2,194,442 6,952,531 16 2017-18 569,734 - - 1,639,000 2,208,734 7,056,633 17 2018-19 586,141 - - 1,649,250 2,235,391 7,305,792 18 2019-20 602,917 - - 1,010,750 1,613,667 9,725,046 19 2020-21 620,069 - - 1,010,750 1,630,819 9,852,490 20 2021-22 637,603 - - 1,003,750 1,641,353 9,980,539 21 2022-23 655,526 - - 1,005,000 1,660,526 10,108,508 22 2023-24 673,844 - - 819,000 1,492,844 10,512,710 23 2024-25 692,563 - - - 692,563 13,283,607 24 2025-26 711,692 - - - 711,692 13,450,508 25 2026-27 731,236 - - - 731,236 13,618,710 26 2027-28 751,204 - - - 751,204 13,790,729 27 2028-29 771,602 - - - 771,602 13,966,652 28 2029-30 792,439 - - - 792,439 14,146,562 29 2030-31 813,722 - - - 813,722 13,642,969 30 2031-32 835,460 - - - 835,460 13,813,580 31 2032-33 525,706 - - - 525,706 11,361,308 32 2033-34 537,050 - - - 537,050 11,505,502 17,869,518 - 322,000 32,492,118 50,683,696 276,416,769 Revenue and Expenditure "-immary RSG. ast-As 8/18/03 4:54 PM 2 of 3 Long Te. it Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 184 Huntington rseach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year City Advance Payments Post-1994 Remaining Pre-1994 Remaining _ Nonhousing Nonhousing Base 1 2002-03 405,000 2,684,117 7,139,085 (4,454,968) 2 2003-04 - 3,146,624 5,396,084 (2,249,460) 3 2004-05 - 3,958,773 5,682,000 (1,723,227) 4 2005-06 1,594,000 3,011,115 5,959,000 (2,947,885) 5 2006-07 - 5,038,544 6,194,000 (1,155,456) 6 2007-08 - 5,148,062 6,404,000 (1,255,938) 7 2008-09 - 5,280,311 6,615,000 (1,334,689) 8 2009-10 - 5,302,782 6,826,000 (1,523,218) 9 2010-11 - 5,166,080 7,037,000 (1,870,920) 10 2011-12 - 5,279,118 7,248,000 (1,968,882) 11 2012-13 - 6,053,206 7,459,000 (1,405,794) 12 2013-14 - 6,656,395 7,670,000 (1,013,605) 13 2014-15 - 6,770,679 7,880,000 (1,109,321) 14 2015-16 - 6,847,588 8,189,000 (1,341,412) 15 2016-17 - 6,952,531 8,498,000 (1,545,469) 16 2017-18 - 7,056,633 8,807,000 (1,750,367) 17 2018-19 - 7,305,792 9,116,000 (1,810,208) 18 2019-20 - 9,725,046 9,426,000 299,046 19 2020-21 - 9,852,490 3,108,940 6,743,550 20 2021-22 - 9,980,539 - 9,980,539 21 2022-23 - 10,108,508 - 10,108,508 22 2023-24 - 10,512,710 - 10,512,710 23 2024-25 - 13,283,607 - 13,283,607 24 2025-26 - 13,450,50.8 - 13,450,508 25 2026-27 - 13,618,710 - 13,618,710 26 2027-28 - 13,790,729 - 13,790,729 27 2028-29 - 13,966,652 - 13,966,652 28 2029-30 - 14,146,562 - 14,146,562 29 2030-31 - 13,642,969 - 13,642,969 30 2031-32 - 13,813,580 - 13,813,580 31 2032-33 - 11,361,308 - 11,361,308 32 2033-34 - 11,505,502 - 11,505,502 1,999,000 274,417,770 134,654,109 139,763,661 -� Revenue and Expenditure Summary RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8118103 4:54 PM Page 3 of 3 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Huntington Center Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Bella Terra Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Subtotal Statutory Total 2% Development 0% 0.19610 Payments Base 64,272,972 12,930,438 77,203,410 2000-01 151,451,849 31,339,865 182,791,714 2002-03 186,026,471 34,675,462 220,701,933 143,498,523 1,434,985 1,147,988 140,118 - 140,118 1 2003-04 189,747,000 34,675,462 224,422,462 147,219,052 1,472,191 1,177,752 143,751 - .143,751 2 2004-05 193,541,940 91,200,000 34,675,462 228,217,402 151,013,992 1,510,140 1,208,112 147,457 - 147,457 3 2005-06 290,436,779 49,900,000 34,675,462 325,112,241 247,908,831 2,479,088 1,983,271 242,069 155,788 397,857 4 2006-07 347,143,515 34,675,462 381,818,977 304,615,567 3,046,156 2,436,925 297,440 246,961 544,401 5 2007-08 354,086,385 34,675,462 388,761,847 311,558,437 3,115,584 2,492,467 304,219 258,124 562,343 6 2008-09 361,168,113 34,675,462 395,843,575 318,640,165 3,186,402 2,549,121 311,134 269,510 580,644 7 2009-10 368,391,475 34,675,462 403,066,937 325.863,527 3,258,635 2,606,908 318,187 281,123 599,311 8 2010-11 375,759,305 34,675,462 410,434,767 333,231,357 3,332,314 2,665,851 325,382 292,969 618,351 9 2011-12 383,274,491 34,675,462 417,949,953 340,746,543 3,407,465 2,725,972 332,720 305,052 637,772 10 2012-13 390,939,980 34,675,462 425,615,442 348,412,032 3,484,120 2,787,296 340,205 317,377 657,581 11 2013-14 398,758,780 34,675,462 433,434,242 356,230,832 3,5621-308 2,849,847 347,839 329,948 677,787 12 2014-15 406,733,956 34,675,462 441,409,418 364,206,008 3,642,060 2,913,648 355,627 342,770 698,397 13 2015-16 414,868,635 34,675,462 449,544,097 372,340,687 3,723,407 2,978,725 363,570 366,836 730,405 14 2016-17 423,166,008 34,675,462 457,841,470 380,638,060 3,806,381 3,045,104 371,671 391,382 763,054 15 2017-18 431,629,328 34,675,462 466,304,790 389,101,380 3,891,014 3,112,811 379,935 416,420 796,355 16 2018-19 440,261,914 34,675,462 474,937,376 397,733,966 3,977,340 3,181,872 388,365 441,958 830,323 17 2019-20 449,067,152 34,675,462 483,742,614 406,539,204 4,065,392 3,252,314 396,962 468,007 864,969 18 2020-21 458,048,496 34,675,462 492,723,958 415,520,548 4,155,205 3,324,164 405,732 494,577 900,309 19 2021-22 467,209,465 34,675,462 501,884,927 424,681,517 4,246,815 3,397,452 414,677 521,678 936,356 20 2022-23 476,553,655 34,675,462 511,229,117 434,025,707 4,340,257 3,472,206 423,802 549,322 973,123 21 2023-24 486,084,728 34,675,462 520,760,190 443,556,780 4,435,568 3,548,454 433,108 577,518 1,010,626 22 2024-25 495,806,422 34,675,462 530,481,884 453,278,474 4,532,785 3,626,228 442,601 606,278 1,048,879 23 2025-26 505,722,551 34,675,462 540,398,013 463,194,603 4,631,946 3,705,557 452,283 635,614 1,087,897 24 2026-27 515,837,002 34,675,462 550,512,464 473,309,054 4,733,091 3,786,472 462,159 665,536 1,127,695 25 2027-28 526,153,742 34,675,462 560,829,204 483,625,794 4,836,258 3,869,006 472,233 696,056 1,168,290 26 2028-29 536,676,817 34,675,462 571,352,279 404,148,869 4,941,489 3,953,191 482,508 727,187 1,209,696 27 2029-30 547,410,353 34,675,462 582,085,815 504,882,405 5,048,824 4,039,059 492,989 758,941 1,251,930 28 2030-31 558,358,560 34,675,462 593,034,022 515,830,612 5,158,306 4,126,645 503,679 791,330 1,295,009 29 2031-32 569,525,731 34,675,462 604,201,163 526,997,783 5,269,978 4,215,982 514,583 824,366 1,338,950 30 2032-33 580,916,246 34,675,462 615,591,708 538,388,298 5,383,883 4,307,106 525,706 858,063 1,383,769 31 2033-34 592,534,571 34,675,462 627,210,033 550,006,623 5,500,066 4,400,053 537,050 892,434 1,429,485 98,887,562 12,069,763 14,483,125 26,552,887 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Ir ast.xls 8/18/03 4:50 PM • 1 Of 6 Long Ter, t Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2. ,4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main Pier Annex Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Hyatt& Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% Waterfront Res. 0% 0.0081883 Payments Base 40,583,263 8,766,986 49,350,249 2000-01 267,744,122 5,491,452 273,235,574 2002-03 418,302,593 6,672,092 424,974,685 375,624,436 3,756,244 3,004,995 - - 1 2003-04 426,668,645 182,621,036 6,672,092 433,340,737 383,990,488 3,839,905 3,071,924 - - 2 2004-05 621,475,474 45,513,448 6,672,092 628,147,566 578,797,317 5,787,973 4,630,379 - 386,423 3 2005-06 680,328,701 21,600,000 6,672,092 687,000,793 637,650,544 6,376,505 5,101,204 - 503,166 4 2006-07 715,967,275 6,672,092 722,639,367 673,289,118 6,732,891 5,386,313 - 573,860 5 2007-08 730,286,620 6,672,092 736,958,712 687,608,463 6,876,085 5,500,868 - 602,264 6 2008-09 744,892,353 6,672,092 751,564,445 702,214,196 7,022,142 5,617,714 - 631,236 7 2009-10 759,790,200 6,672,092 766,462,292 717,112,043 7,171,120 5,736,896 - 660,788 8 2010-11 774,986,004 6,672,092 781,658,096 732,307,847 7,323,078 5,858,463 - 690,930 9 2011-12 790,485,724 6,672,092 797,157,816 747,807,567 7,478,076 5,982,461 - 721,676 10 2012-13 806,295,438 6,672,0.92 812,967,530 763,617,281 7,636,173 6,108,938 - 753,037 11 2013-14 822,421,347 6,672,092 829,093,439 779,743,190 7,797,432 6,237,946 - 785,024 12 2014-15 838,869,774 6,672,092 845,541,866 796,191,617 7,961,916 6,369,533 - 845,059 13 2015-16 855,647,170 6,672,092 862,319,262 812,969,013 8,129,690 6,503,752 - 906,294 14 2016-17 872,760,113 6,672,092 879,432,205 830,081,956 8,300,820 6,640,656 - 968,754 15 2017-18 890,215,315 6,672,092 896,887,407 847,537,158 8,475,372 6,780,297 - 1,032,463 16 2018-19 908,019,622 6,672,092 914,691,714 865,341,465 8,653,415 6,922,732 - 1,097,447 17 2019-20 926,180,014 6,672,092 932,852,106 883,501,857 8,835,019 7,068,015 - 1,163,730 18 2020-21 944,703,614 6,672,092 951,375,706 902,025,457 9,020,255 7,216,204 - 1,231,338 19 2021-22 963,597,687 6,672,092 970,269,779 920,919,530 9,209,195 7,367,356 - 1,300,299 20 2022-23 982,869,640 6,672,092 989,541,732 940,191,483 9,401,915 7,521,532 - 1,370,639 21 2023-24 1,002,527,033 6,672,092 1,009,199,125 959,848,876 9,598,489 7,678,791 - 1,442,386 22 2024-25 1,022,577,574 6,672,092 1,029,249,666 979,899,417 9,798,994 7,839,195 - 1,515,568 23 2025-26 1,043,029,125 6,672,092 1,049,701,217 1,000,350,968 10,003,510 8,002,808 - 1,590,213 24 2026-27 1,063,889,708 6,612,092 1,070,561,800 1,021,211,551 10,212,116 8,169,692 - 1,666,352 25 2027-28 1,085,167,502 6,672,092 1,091,839,594 1,042,489,345 10,424,893 8,339,915 - 1,744,013 26 2028-29 1,106,870,852 6,672,092 1,113,542,944 1,064,192,695 10,641,927 8,513,542 - 1,823,227 27 2029-30 1,129,008,269 6,672,092 1,135,680,361 1,086,330,112 10,863,301 8,690,641 - 1,904,026 28 2030-31 1,151,588,434 6,672,092 1,158,260,526 1,108,910,277 11,089,103 8,871,282 - 1,986,440 29 2031-32 1,174,620,203 6,672,092 1,181,292,295 1,131,942,046 11,319,420 9,055,536 - 2,070,503 30 2032-33 1,198,112,607 6,672,092 1,204,784,699 1,155,434,450 11,554,345 9,243,476 - 2,156,247 31 2033-34 1,222,074,859 6,672,092 1,228,746,951 1,179,396,702 11,793,967 9,435,174 - 2,243,707 218,468,228 36,367,110 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8118103 4:50 PM Page 2 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Main Pier Original Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured The Strand Other Total Incremental Increment Share (80%) Water Statutory 2% Development 0% 0.0081882 Payments Base 4,007,363 1,686,785 5,694,148 2000-01 72,972,691 7,691,243 80,663,934 2002-03 80,626,088 8,477,757 89,103,845 83,409,697 834,097 667,278 - - 1 2003-04 82,238,610 8,477,757 90,716,367 85,022,219 850,222 680,178 - 3,199 2 2004-05 83,883,382 46,000,000 8,477,757 92,361,139 86,666,991 866,670 693,336 - 6,461 3 2005-06 132,481,050 8,477,757 140,958.807 135,264,659 1,352,647 1,082,117 - 102,861 4 2006-07 135,130,671 8,477,757 143,608,428 137,914,280 1,379,143 1,103,314 - 108,117 5 2007-08 137,833,284 8,477,757 146,311,041 140,616,893 1,406,169 1,124,935 - 113,478 6 2008-09 140,589,950 8,477,757 149,067,707 143,373,559 1,433,736 1,146,988 - 118,946 7 2009-10 143,401,749 8,477,757 151,879,506 146,185,358 1,461,854 1,169,483 - 124,523 8 2010-11 146,269,784 8,477,757 154,747,541 149,053,393 1,490,534 1,192,427 - 130,212 9 2011-12 149,195,179 8,477,757 157,672,936 151,978,788 1,519,788 1,215,830 - 136,015 10 2012-13 152,179,083 8,477,757 160,656,840 154,962,692 1,549,627 1,239,702 - 141,934 11 2013-14 155,222,665 8,477,757 163,700,422 158,006,274 1,580,063 1,264,050 - 153,043 12 2014-15 158,327,118 8,477,757 166,804,875 161,110,727 1,611,107 1,288,886 - 164,374 13 2015-16 161,493,660 8,477,757 169,971,417 164,277,269 1,642,773 1,314,218 - 175,931 14 2016-17 164,723,533 8,477,757 173,201,290 167,507,142 1,675,071 1,340,057 - 187,720 15 2017-18 168,018,004 8,477,757 176,495,761 170,801,613 1,708,016 1,366,413 - 199,744 16 2018-19 171,378,364 8,477,757 179,856,121 174,161,973 1,741,620 1,393,296 - 212,009 17 2019-20 174,805,931 8,477,757 183,283,688 177,589,540 1,775,895 1,420,716 - 224,519 18 2020-21 178,302,050 8,477,757 186,779,807 181,085,659 1,810,857 1,448,685 - 237,280 19 2021-22 181,868,091 8,477,757 190,345,848 184,651,700 1,846,517 1,477,214 - 250,295 20 2022-23 185,505,453 8,477,757 193,983,210 188,289,062 1,882,891 1,506,312 - 263,571 21 2023-24 189,215,562 8,477,757 197,693,319 191,999,171 1,919,992 1,535,993 - 277,112 22 2024-25 192,999,873 8,477,757 201,477,630 195,783,482 1,957,835 1,566,268 - 290,925 23 2025-26 196,859,871 8,477,757 205,337,628 199,643,480 1,996,435 1,597,148 - 305,013 24 2026-27 200,797,068 8,477,757 209,274,825 203,580,677 2,035,807 1,628,645 - 319,383 25 2027-28 204,813,009 8,477,757 213,290,766 207,596,618 2,075,966 1,660,773 - 334,041 26 2028-29 208,909,270 8,477,757 217,387,027 211,692,879 2,116,929 1,693,543 - 348,992 27 2029-30 213,087,455 8,477,757 221,565,212 215,871,064 2,158,711 1,726,969 - 364,242 28 2030-31 217,349,204 8,477,757 225,826,961 220,132,813 2,201,328 1,761,063 - 379,797 29 2031-32 221,696,188 8,477,757 230,173,945 224,479,797 2,244,798 1,795,838 - 395,662 40,101,676 6,069,399 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Ir st.xls 8/18/03 4:50 PM 3 of 6 Long" ebt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting 0-04 Hunting leach Redevelopment Project Oakview Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Subtotal Statutory 2% 0% 0.768174 Payments Base 22,847,771 434,862 23,282,633 2000-01 63,685,839 11.982,954 75,668,793 2002-03 72,327,545 5,579,896 77,907,441 54,624,808 546,248 436,998 92,804 - 1 2003-04 73,774,096 5,579,896 79,353,992 56,071,359 560,714 448,571 98,008 671 2 2004-05 75,249,578 5,579,896 80,829,474 57,546,841 575,468 460,375 103,387 1,355 3 2005-06 76,754,569 5,579,896 82,334,465 59,051,832 590,518 472,415 108.941 2,053 4 2006-07 78,289,661 5,579,896 83,869,557 60,586,924 605,869 484,695 114,672 2,764 5 2007-08 79,855,454 5,579,896 85,435,350 62,152,717 621,527 .497,222 120,582 3,490 6 2008-09 81,452,563 5,579,896 87,032,459 63,749,826 637,498 509,999 126,670 4,231 7 2009-10 83,081,614 5,579,896 88,661,510 65,378,877 653,789 523,031 132,939 4,986 8 2010-11 84,743,247 5,579,896 90,323,143 67,040,510 670,405 536,324 139,390 5,757 9 2011-12 86,438,112 5,579,896 92,018,008 68,735,375 687,354 549,883 146,025 6,542 10 2012-13 88,166,874 5,579,896 93,746,770 70,464,137 704,641 563,713 152,845 7,344 11 2013-14 89,930,211 5,579,896 95,510,107 72,227,474 722,275 577,820 159,852 8,848 12 2014-15 91,728,815 5,579,896 97,308,711 74,026,078 740,261 592,209 167,049 10,383 13 2015-16 93,563,392 5,579,896 99,143,288 75,860,655 758,607 606,885 174,438 11,948 14 2016-17 95,434,660 5,579,896 -101,014,556 77,731,923 777,319 621,855 182,020 13,544 15 2017-18 97,343,353 5,579,896 102,923,249 79,640,616 796,406 637,125 189,799 15,173 16 2018-19 99,290,220 5,579,896 104,870,116 81,587,483. 815,875 652,700 197,776 16,834 17 2019-20 101,276,024 5,579,896 106,855,920 83,573,287 835,733 668,586 205,954 18,528 18 2020-21 103,301,545 5,579,896 108,881,441 85,598,808 855,988 684,790 214,337 20,256 19 2021-22 105,367,576 5,579,896 110947,472 .87,664,839 876,648 701,319 222,926 22,018 20 2022-23 107,474,927 5,579,896 113:054,823 89,772,190 897,722 718,178 231,724 23,8.16 21 2023-24 109,624,426 5,579,896 115,204,322 91,921,689 919,217 735,374 240,736 25,650 22 2024-25 111,816,914 5,579,896 117,396,810 94,114,177 941,142 752,913 249,962 27,520 23 2025-26 114,053,252 5,579,896 119,633,148 96,350,515 963,505 770,804 259,408 29,428 24 2026-27 116,334,318 5,579,896 121914,214 98,631,581 986,316 789,053 269,077 31,374 25 2027-28 118,661,004 5,579,896 124:240,900 100,958,267 1,009,583 807,666 278,971 33,359 26 2028-29 121,034,224 5,579,896 126,614,120 103,331,487 1,033,315 826,652 289,094 35,384 27 2029-30 123,454,908 5,579,896 129,034,804 105,752,171 1,057,522 846,017 299,450 37,449 28 2030-31 125,924,007 5,579,896 131,503,903 108,221,270 1,082,213 865,770 310,043 39,555 29 2031-32 128,442,487 5,579,896 134,022,383 110,739,750 1,107,397 885,918 320,876 41,704 19,224,860 5,799,755 501,963 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8/18/03 4:50 PM Page 4 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Talbert-Beach Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% 0% 0.0075264 Payments Base 812,622 776,832 1,589,454 2000-01 37,094,428 1,918,322 39,012,750 37,423,296 374,233 299,386 2002-03 44,271,172 930,689 45,201,861 43,612,407 436,124 348,899 - 12,657 1 2003-04 45,156,595 930,689 46,087,284 44,497,830 444,978 355,983 - 17,086 2 2004-05 46,059,727 930,689 46,990,416 45,400,962 454,010 363,208 - 18,844 3 2005-06 46,980,922 930,689 47,911,611 46,322,157 463,222 370,577 - 20,636 4 2006-07 47,920,540 930,689 48,851,229 47,261,775 472,618 378,094 - 22,465 5 2007-08 48,878,951 930,689 49,809,640 48,220,186 482,202 385,761 - 24,330 6 2008-09 49,856,530 930,689 50,787,219 49,197,765 491,978 393,582 - 26,232 7 2009-10 50,853,661 930,689 51,784,350 50,194,896 501,949 401,559 - 28,173 8 2010-11 51,870,734 930,689 52,801.423 51,211,969 512,120 409,696 - 33,867 9 2011-12 . 52,908,149 930,689 53,838,838 52,249,384 522,494 417,995 - 37,655 10 2012-13 53,966,312 930,689 54,897,001 53,307,547 533,075 426,460 - 41,520 11 2013-14 55,045,638 930,689 55,976,327 54,386,873 543,869 435,095 - 45,462 12 2014-15 56,146,551 930,689 57,077,240 55,487,786 554,878 443,902 - 49,483 13 2015-16 57,269,482 930,689 58,200,171 56,610,717 566,107 452,886 - 53,584 14 2016-17 58,414,871 930,689 59,345,560 57,756,106 577,561 462,049 - 57,768 15 2017-18 59,583,169 930,689 60,513,858 58,924,404 589,244 471,395 - 62,035 16 2018-19 60,774,832 930,689 61,705,521 60,116,067 601,161 480,929 - 66,387 17 2019-20 61,990,329 930,689 62,921,018 61,331,564 613,316 490,653 - 70,826 18 2020-21 63,230,135 930,689 64,160,824 62,571,370 625,714 500,571 - 75,355 19 2021-22 64,494,738 930,689 65,425,427 63,835,973 638,360 510,688 - 79,973 20 2022-23 65,784,633 930,689 66,715,322 65,125,868 651,259 521,007 - 84,684 21 2023-24 67,100,325 930,689 68,031,014 66,441,560 664,416 531,532 - 89,490 22 2024-25 68,442,332 930,689 69,373,021 67,783,567 677,836 542,269 - 94,391 23 2025-26 69,811,179 930,689 70,741,868 69,152,414 691,524 553,219 - 99,390 24 2026-27 71,207,402 930,689 72,138,091 70,548,637 705,486 564,389 - 104,490 25 2027-28 72,631,550 930,689 73,562,239 71,972,785 719,728 575,782 - 109,691 26 2028-29 74,084,181 930,689 75,014,870 73,425,416 734,254 587,403 - 114,997 27 2029-30 75,565,865 930,689 76,496,554 74,907,100 749,071 599,257 - 120,408 28 2030-31 77,077,182 930,689 78,007,871 76,418,417 764,184 611,347 - 127,608 29 2031-32 78,618,726 930,689 79,549,415 77,959,961 779,600 623,680 - 134,952 14,209,868 1,924,439 'y Projections and Pass Throughs RSG, st.xls 8/18/03 4:50 PM � 5 of 6 Long Te )t Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in*4 Huntingtoi. -each Redevelopment Project Yorktown-Lake Fiscal Year Assessed Value Projections Gross Tax Nonhousing Taxing Agency Payments Secured Other Total Incremental Increment Share(80%) Water Statutory 2% 0% 0.0081878 Payments Base 1,165,499 635,117 1,800,616 2000-01 37,848,645 495,406 38,344,051 2002-03 41,806,889 266,428 42,073,317 40,272,701 402,727 322,182 - 30,295 1 2003-04 42,643,027 266,428 42,909,455 41,108,839 411,088 328,871 - 31,954 2 2004-05 43,495,887 266,428 43,762,315 41,961,699 419,617 335,694 - 33,646 3 2005-06 44,365,805 266,428 44,632,233 42,831,617 428,316 342,653 - 35,371 4 2006-07 45,253,121 266,428 45,519.549 43,718,933 437,189 349,751 - 38,610 5 2007-08 46,158,184 266,428 46,424,612 44,623,996 446,240 356,992 - 41,913 6 2008-09 47,081,347 266,428 47,347.775 45,547,159 455,472 364,377 - 45,283 7 2009-10. 48,022,974 266,428 48,289,402 46,488,786 464,888 371,910 - 48,719 8 2010-11 48,983,434 266,428 49,249,862 47,449,246 474,492 379,594 - 52,225 9 2011-12 49,963,102 266,428 50,229,530 48,428,914 484,289 387,431 - 55,801 10 2012-13 50,962,364 266,428 51,228,792 49,428,176 494,282 395,425 - 59,448 11 2013-14 51,981,612 266,428 52,248,040 50,447,424 504,474 403,579 - 63,168 12 2014-15 53,021,244 266,428 53,287,672 51,487,056 514,871 411,896 - 66,962 13 2015-16 54.081,669 266,428 54,348,097 52,547,481 525,475 420,380 - 70,833 14 2016-17 55,163,302 266,428 55,429,730 53,629,114 536,291 429,033 - 74,781 15 2017-18 56,266,568 266,428 56,532,996 54,732,380 547,324 437,859 - 78,807 16 2018-19 57,391,900 266,428 57,658,328 55,857.712 558,577 446,862 - 82,915 17 2019-20 58,539,738 266,428 .58,806,166 57,005,550 570,055 456,044 - 87,104 18 2020-21 59,710,532 266,428 59,976,960 58,176,344 581,763 465,411 - 91,377 19 2021-22 60,904,743 266,428 61,171,171 59,370,555 593,706 474,964 - 95,736 20 2022-23 62,122,838 266,428 62,389,266 60,588,650 605,886 484,709 - 100,182 21 2023-24 63,365,295 266,428 63,631,723 61,831,107 618,311 494,649 - 104,717 22 2024-25 64,632,600 266,428 64,899,028 63,098,412 630,984 504,787 - 109,342 23 2025-26 65,925,253 266,428 66,191,681 64,391,065 643,911 515,129 - 114,060 24 2026-27 67,243,758 266,428 67,510,186 65,709,570 657,096 525,677 - 120,337 25 2027-28 68,588,633 266,428 68,855,061 67,054,445 670,544 536,436 - 126,740 26 2028-29 69,960,405 266,428 70,226,833 68,426,217 684,262 547,410 - 133,271 27 2029-30 71,359,613 266,428 71,626,041 69,825,425 698,254 558,603 - 139,932 28 2030-31 72,786,806 266,428 73,053,234 71,252,618 712,526 570,021 - 146,726 29 2031-32 74,242,542 266,428 74,508,970 72,708,354 727,084 581,667 - 153,656 13,199,996 2,433,912 Projections and Pass Throughs RSG,Inc. forecaslAs 8I18103 4:50 PM Page 6 of 6 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year T.O.T. Hyatt Hyatt Abdelmuti Hilton Waterfront The Strand The Strand Bella Terra Lease/ Mola Total (Waterfront) TOT Ground Loan Lease/RLO Interim TOT Parking Sales Sale Settlement Lease Ground Lease Rent Revenue Revenue Taxes (438 Main) 2002-03 795,000 447,600 23,775 340,505 110,340 110,340 901,538 55,621 2,784,719 2003-04 795,000 1,059,000 75,000 340,505 113,650 113,650 2,496,805 2004-05 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 117,059 117,060 220,752 185,000 942,675 4,087,851 2005-06 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 120,571 120,571 222,960 190,550 593,375 3,753,332 2006-07 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 124,188 124,189 225,189 196,267 573,621 3,748,759 2007-08 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 127,914 127,914 227,441 202,154 553,472 3,744,201 2008-09 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 340,505 131,751 131,752 229,715 208,219 532,920 3,739,663 2009-10 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 255,375 135,704 135,704 232,013 214,466 511,957 3,650,018 2010-11 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 139,775 139,775 234,333 220,900 490,574 3,390,157 2011-12 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 143,968 143,969 236,676 227,527 468,764 3,385,704 2012-13 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 148,287 148,288 239,043 234,352 446,518 3,381,289 2013-14 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 152,736 152,736 241,433 241,383 423,827 3,376,916 2014-15 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 157,318 157,318 243,848 248,625 400,682 3,372,591 2015-16 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 162,038 162,038 246,286 256,083 377,074 3,368,319 2016-17 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 166,899 166,899 248,749 263,766 352,994 3,364,107 2017-18 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 171,906 171,906 251,236 271,679 328,433 3,359,960 2018-19 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 177,063 177,063 253,749 279,829 303,380 3,355,884 2019-20 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 182,375 182,375 256,286 288,224 277,826 3,351,886 2020-21 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 187,846 187,846 258,849 296,871 251,761 3,347,973 2021-22 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 193,481 193,482 261,438 305,777 225,175 3,344,152 2022-23 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 199,286 199,286 264,052 314;950 198,057 3,340,431 2023-24 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 205,264 205,265 266,692 324,399 170,663 3,337,083 2024-25 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 211,422 211,423 269,359 334,131 - 3,191,135 2025-26 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 217,765 217,765 272,053 344,154 - 3,216,538 2026-27 795,000 .1,219,800 150,000 - 224,298 224,298 274,774 354,479 - 3,242,649 2027-28 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 231,027 231,027 277,521 365,114 - 3,269,489 2028-29 796,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 237,958 237,958 280,296 376,067 - 3,297,079 2029-30 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 245,097 245,097 283,099 387,349 - 3,325,442 2030-31 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 252,449 252,450 - 2,669,699 2031-32 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 260,023 260,023 - 2,684,846 2032-33 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 267,824 267,824 - 2,700,448 2033-34 795,000 1,219,800 150,000 - 275,858 275,859 2,716,517 25,440,000 38,100,600 4,598,775 2,638,910 5,793,143 5,793,153 6,517,842 7,132,313 8,423,747 901,538 55,621 105,395,641 V Other 0wenues --�-- RSG, st.xls 8/18/03 4:50 PM � 1 1 of 1 Long T t Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in*4 Hunting*ach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year 2002-03 Potential Future Total ERAF ERAF Pmts ERAF Payments Estimated Payments 2002-03 207,591 - 207,591 2003-04 - 415,182 415,182 2004-05 - - - 2005-06 - - - 2006-07 - - - 2007-08 - - - 2008-09 - - - 2009-10 - - - 2010-11 - - - 2011-12 - - - 2012-13 - - 2013-14 - - 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - - 2016-17 - - - 2017-18 - - - 2018-19 - - - 2019-20 - - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - - 2022-23 - - - 2023-24 - - - 2024-25 - - - 2025-26 - - 2026-27 - - 2027-28 - - - 2028-29 - - - 2029-30 - - - 2030-31 - - 2031-32 - - - 2032-33 - - - 2033-34 - - - TOTAL 207,591 415,182 622,773 2002-03 Payment based on actual cost. Future payments subject to ongoing State budget process, Recent proposals in the legislature calls for a$135 million ERAF payment from redevelopment agencies statewide,which is rougly twice the$75 million taken in 2002-03. ERAF Loans CftP RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8118/03 4:50 FM Page 1 of 1 I Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated Fiscal Year 1999 TA 2002 TA HUD Sec. DDA and OPA Debt Service Payments Total Refunding Ref. Bonds 108 Loan Terry Buick Mayer Bella Terra The Strand TOTAL Debt Svc& Bonds (Pre-1/94) - (Pre 1/94) (Post 1/94) (Post 1194) (Post 1/94) DDA Pmts 2002-03 739,969 1,613,084 600,071 322,000 1,120,000 1,442,000 4,395,124 2003-04 737,809 1,609,805 602,244 1,120,000 1,120,000 4,069,858 2004-05 740,969 1,606,055 603,301 ; 1,120,000 1,581,075 727,752 3,428,827 1 6,379,152 2005-06 743,239 1,611,930 598,307 1 1,120,000 1,581,075 741,950 3,443,025 6,396,501 2006-07 744,589 1,613,230 597,621 1,120,000 1,581,075 756.464 3,457,539 6,412,980 2007-08 744,989 1,616,743 600,654 1,120,000 1,581,075 771,304 3,472,379 i 6,434,766 2008-09 739,789 1,612,168 597,249 1,120,000 1,581,075 786,478 3,487,553 1 6,436,758 2009-10 743,799 1,621,718 597,814 1,120,000 1,581,075 801,992 3,503,067 6,466,398 2010-11 746,579 1,622,593 596,215 1,120,000 1,581,075 817,857 3,518,932 6,484,318 2011-12 748,089 1,635,738 592,971 1,120,000 1,581,075 834,079 3,535,154 6,511,952 2012-13 743,289 1,640,938 587,733 478,000 1,581,075 850,670 2,909,745 5,881,704 2013-14 747,364 1,638,038 585,720 - 1,581,075 867,636 2,448,711 5,419,833 2014-15 749,824 1,627,138 581,627 - 1,581,075 884,988 2,466,063 5,424,652 2015-16 750,619 1,644,750 580,395 1,581,075 902,736 2,483,811 5,459,575 2016-17 749,699 1,640,750 576,606 - 1,581,075 920,889 2,501,964 5,469,018 2017-18 752,155 1,639,000 570,229 - 1,581,075 939,456 2,520,531 1 5,481,915 2018-19 753,000 1,649,250 561,382 - 1,581,075 806,721 2,387,796 5,351,427 2019-20 461,750 1,010,750 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 3,053,575 2020-21 458,500 1,010,750 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 € 3,050,325 2021-22 464,500 1,003,750 - 1,581.075 - 1,581,075 3,049,325 2022-23 464,250 1,005,000 - 1,581,075 - 1,581,075 3,050,325 2023-24 378,000 819,000 - 1,581,342 - 1,581,342 € 2,778,342 2024-25 - - - - - 2025-26 - - - - - 2026-27 - - - - - 2027-28 - - - - - 2028-29 - - - - - 2029-30 - - - - - 2030-31 - - - - - 2031-32 - - - - - 2032-33 - - - - - 2033-34 - - - - - TOTAL 14,902,770 32,492,178 10,030,137 322,000 11,678,000 31,621,767 12,410,972 56,032,739 113,457,824 Figures provided by Redevelopment Agency staff. Debt Service&DDA Payments ,.v RSG ecast.xls 8/18/03 4:50 PM le 1 Of 1 Long Te Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in Huntingto ch Redevelopment Project Consolidated Post 1/94 Debt Pre 1/94 Debt Payments Payments Projected Administrative Costs /1 Base 80%Tax Inc. Taxing Agency .Taxing Agency Remaining Non- Business Other Total Payments Payments Housing Revenue Development Administration 1 2002-03 5,928,341 183,071 232,922 5,512,348 464,210 605,235 1,069,445 2 2003-04 6,063,278 196,660 241,759 5,624,859 396,084 490,000 886,084 3 2004-05 7,691,102 594,185 250,843 6,846,074 482,000 596,000 1,078,000 4 2005-06 9,352,237 1,061,943 351,010 7,939,284 559,000 691,000 1,250,000 5 2006-07 10,139,093 1,290,216 412,112 8,436,765 594,000 734,000 1,328,000 6 2007-08 10,358,246 1,347,817 424,801 8,585,627 604,000 747,000 1,351,000 7 2008-09 10,581,781 1,406,571 437,804 8,737,406 615,000 760,000 1,375,000 8 2009-10 10,809,788 1,466,500 451,126 8,892,162 626,000 773,000 1,399,000 9 2010-11 11,042,355 1,531,342 464,771 9,046,241 637,000 786,000 1,423,000 10 2011-12 11,279,573 1,595,462 478,744 9,205,367 648,000 800,000 1,448,000 11 2012-13 11,521,535 1,660,864 493,049 9,367,621 659,000 814,000 1,473,000 12 2013-14 11,768,337 1,733,333 507,692 9,527,312 670,000 828,000 1,498,000 13 2014-15 12,020,074 1,834,658 522,676 9,662,741 680,000 840,000 1,520,000 14 2015-16 12,276,847 1,948,996 538,008 9,789,843 689,000 851,000 1,540,000 15 2016-17 12,538,754 2,065,620 553,692 9,919,442 698,000 862,000 1,560,000 16 2017-18 12,805,900 2,184,577 569,734 10,051,589 707,000 873,000 1,580,000 17 2018-19 13,078,389 2,305,914 586,141 10,186,335 716,000 885,000 1,601,000 18 2019-20 13,356,328 2,429,677 602,917 10,323,735 726,000 897,000 1,623,000 19 2020-21 13,639,825 2,555,915 620,069 10,463,842 736,000 909,000 1,645,000 20 2021-22 13,928,993 2,684,678 637,603 10,606,712 746,000 921,000 1,667,000 21 2022-23 14,223,944 2,816,016 655,526 10,752,402 756,000 934,000 1,690,000 22 2023-24 14,524,793 2,949,981 673,844 10,900,969 766,000 947,000 1,713,000 23 2024-25 14,831,660 3,086,625 692,563 11,052,472 777,000 960,000 1,737,000 24 2025-26 15,144,664 3,226,003 711,692 11,206,970 788,000 973,000 1,761,000 25 2026-27 15,463,929 3,369,632 731,236 11,363,060 799,000 987,000 1,786,000 26 2027-28 15,789,578 3,516,134 751,204 11,522,240 810,000 1,001,000 1,811,000 27 2028-29 16,121,741 3,665,566 771,602 11,684,572 821,000 1,015,000 1,836,000 28 2029-30 16,460,546 3,817,987 792,439 11,850,121 833,000 1,029,000 1,862,000 29 2030-31 16,806,128 3,975,136 813,722 12,017,270 845,000 1,044,000 1,889,000 30 2031-32 17,158,622 4,135,428 835,460 12,187,734 857,000 1,059,000 1,916,000 31 2032-33 13,550,582 3,540,016 525,706 9,484,860 667,000 824,000 1,491,000 32 2033-34 13,835,227 3,673,191 537,050 9,624,985 677,000 836,000 1,513,000 TOTAL 404,092,189 73,849,711 17,869,518 312,372,960 22,048,294 27,271,235 49,319,529 1/ 2002-03 and 2003-04 figures estimated by Agency staff. Future costs Projected to grow at same rate of nonhousing tax increment revenue. Business Development Costs are credited against City debt payments. Administrative Costs ram] RSG,Inc. forecastAs 8118/03 4:50 PM Page 1 of 1 Long Term Debt Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in 2003-04 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Consolidated PRE-1994 DEBTS TO CITY FUNDS Current Balances Fiscal Year Beg. Bal Payments on Pre 1/1994 City Debts End. Bal. 4.57% Bus. Dev. Additional Total General&Administrative Advances 1983-84 65,506 2002-03 94,617,299 464,210 6,674,875 7,139,085 87,478,213 1984-85 2,639,981 2003-04 87,478,213 396,084 5,000,000 5,396,084 85,833,283 1985-86 1,421,814 2004-05 85,833,283 482,000 5,200,000 5,682,000 83,814,196 1986-87 5,380,112 2005-06 83,814,196 559,000 5,400,000 5,959,000 81,413,179 1987-88 6,158,284 2006-07 81,413,179 594,000 5,600,000 6,194,000 78,656,695 1988-89 2,636,245 2007-08 78,656,695 604,000 5,800,000 6,404,000 75,554,643 1989-90 6,495,355 2008-09 75,554,643 615,000 6,000,000 6,615,000 72,090,185 1990-91 1,042,202 2009-10 72,090,185 626,000 6,200,000 6,826,000 68,246,758 1991-92 278,099 2010-11 68,246,758 637,000 6,400,000 7,037,000 64,007,044 1992-93 119,557 2011-12 64,007,044 648,000 6,600,000 7,248,000 59,352,933 Bus. Dev. Credit (2,886,473) 2012-13 59,352,933 659,000 6,800,000 7,459,000 54,265,485 City Land Purchase Advances 2013-14 54,265,485 670,000 7,000,000 7,670,000 48,724,899 1983-84 828,994 2014-15 48,724,899 680,000 7,200,000 7,880,000 42,711,511 1986-87 2,511,046 2015-16 42,711,511 689,000 7,500,000 8,189,000 36,100,190 1987-88 52,880,194 2016-17 36,100,190 698,000 7,800,000 8,498,000 28,863,610 1988-89 4,117,147 2017-18 28,863,610 707,000 8,100,000 8,807.000 20,973,197 1990-91 4,638,660 2018-19 20,973,197 716,000 8,400,000 9,116,000 12,399,071 Credit in 02-03 (3,566,003) 2019-20 12,399,071 726,000 8,700,000 9,426,000 3,108,940 Water Fund Advances 2020-21 3,108,940 736,000 2,372,940 3,108,940 - 1985-86 386,559 2021-22 - - - - - 1986-87 2,473,385 2022-23 - - - - - Other Advances 2023-24 - - - - - Gas Tax 1,279,875 2024-25 - - - - - Drainage Fund 487,023 2025-26 - - - - - Sewer Fund 202,084 2026-27 - - - - - Capital Fund 466,103 2027-28 - - - - - Emerald Cove 4,011,846 2028-29 - - - - - Deferred Fees 792,703 2029-30 - - - - - Park Fee Credit (243,000) 2030-31 - - - - - TOTAL 94,617,299 2031-32 - - - - - (As of Sept. 30, 2002) 2032-33 - - - - - 2033-34 - - - - - TOTAL 11,906,294 122,747,815 134,654,109 City Advance & Loans RSGerst-As 8/18/03 4:50 PM ' 1 of 2 G� Long TE >t Analysis-Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City Debt Starting in )4 Huntingk _ach Redevelopment Project Consolidated POST-1994 DEBTS TO CITY FUNDS Current Balances Fiscal Year Beg. Bal Payment End. Bal. General&Administrative Advances 1995-96 405,000 2002-03 1,999,000 405,000 1,594,000 Other Debts 2003-04 1,594,000 - 1,594,000 ERAF Loar 731,000 2004-05 1,594,000 - 1,594,000 Housing 863,000 2005-06 1,594,000 1,594,000 - TOTAL 1,999,000 2006-07 - - (As of Sept. 30,2002) 2007-08 - - - 2008-09 - - - 2009-10 - - - 2010-11 - - - 2011-12 - - - 2012-13 - - 2013-14 - - - 2014-15 - - - 2015-16 - - - 2016-17 - - - 2017-18 - - - 2018-19 - - - 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - - 2021-22 - - - 2022-23 - - - 2023-24 - - - 2024-25 - - - 2025-26 - - - 2026-27 - - - 2027-28 - - - 2028-29 - - - 2029-30 - - 2030-31 - - - 2031-32 - - - 2032-33 - - - 2033-34 - - - TOTAL 1,999,000 City Advances& Loans RSG,Inc. forecast.xls 8/18103 4:50 PM _ Page 2 of 2 Here is a listing of finance/debt related issues for the Redevelopment Agency which we need to try to reconstruct or address: Ocean View Estates The history of the land acquisition, including funding source and value, is unclear. Once we determine the value and funding source,this becomes a factor is deciding what fund should have been the beneficiary of the net income from the site. There is also a need to reconstruct the annual operating experience for OVE. What was the income versus the expenses and where did the net income go? This needs to include a determination about what income was generated by the rental of Agency-owned coaches and where did this income go and where should the sales proceeds from these coaches have gone. Current Information Real Estate Services has provided a spreadsheet which tries to reconstruct the cost purchasing the OVE site. However, a final best estimate number has not been agreed upon, nor is the funding source identified. An OVE narrative history is attached. Outstanding questions include: 1)August 23, 1985 action identifying $250,000 paid to Redevelopment Agency by the HB Company to apply towards OVE; was it paid and how was it spent? 2) September 6, 1985 action allocated$560,000 to construct OVE (1/2 HCD/CDBG and '/2 PADF); was this the final actual cost and funding sources? 3) L:_.....: Redevelopment Agency owned coaches sold in 2000-2001. Need to verify net sales proceeds and reallocate funds to Agency at least as a credit against debt. Emerald Cove This project is now owned and operated by the City. There is an amount owed from the Redevelopment Agency from the Park Acquisition and Development fund for the site upon which Emerald Cove sits. Now that the bonded indebtedness on Emerald Cove has been formally defeased, the Redevelopment Agency needs to convey the property to the City. However, this conveyance should not take place until we unravel some of the past financial arrangements. There is a question about the Redevelopment Agency obligation to make a repayment when it sold some adjacent property. It appears as if the payment went into the Emerald Cove fund to hold down rents rather than as a repayment to the PA&D fund. It seems that the sales price for the industrial parcel was applied against this debt, but that the $900,000 received for the Windover project was diverted. There is also an issue associated with some fees which were deferred for the project which appear as a debt on the Agency's financial statement. Current Information February 7, 1983, resolution no. 5219, shows City selling 10 acre site to Redevelopment Agency for $2,750,000 @ 10% interest. Cites future repayment, in part, from the sale of a 5-acre industrial parcel. Sale of 5-acre parcel did occur. What was the amount ($860,000?), when, and paid to what fund. Sale of Windward Cove site was also to be applied to debt. Sale of site did occur. What was the amount ($748,000 in 33433 report; $900,000 referred to in 4/6/88 RCA), when, and paid to what fund. RCA regarding rent increases at Emerald Cove refers to this amount being used to subsidize rents. Deferred fees ($170,000) identified in 33433 report for Windward Cove. Part of current debt? 1984 COP's Official Statement showed $460,000 as reimbursement of City loan. What was this for? Composition of Land Advances We need to provide the composition of the land advances and to explain that portion which was a write-off as recommended by the Auditor. In addition, I am looking for the appraisal which-was done at the time that.the Redevelopment Agency acquired the r Waterfront site from the City. Current Information Information from audit describes current debt, background information needed. Advances from Special Funds While we have a good listing of the amounts owed to each Special Fund, such as the Water, Sewer, Capital projects hinds,there is not clear documentation as to the projects funded or the rationale behind the advance. Folklorically, it has been explained to me that these advances were normally planned expenditures from these funds that were booked as a debt in case there was an opportunity to repay them with redevelopment funds in the future. We need to try to provide some documentation which supports this history, if possible. Current Information Information from audit describes current debt, background information needed. Attachment 3 �e OVE InformatonY � , 3 OCEAN VIEW ESTATES Oct 1981 The Huntington Beach Company mails eviction notices to all Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park tenants. (Twice the City of Huntington Beach stopped the Huntington Beach Company from evicting the mobile home tenants by issuing moratoriums that prohibited mobile home park conversion to other uses.) Oct 1, 1983 Notice of intent to change the use of the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park and Relocate Mobile Home Owners delivered by Huntington Beach Company. Nov 9, 1983 The Huntington Beach Company meets with the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Owners Association to present a tentative relocation assistance plan, with an offer to work with residents to meet individual situations and needs Jun 8, 1984 `Eligible owners" as defined by ordinance, offered payment of original purchase price for their coach, providing they vacate . the mobile home park by September 4, 1984: At the requests. of several owners, the Huntington Beach Company extends the date to October 1, 1984. Of the 44 eligible owners/spaces, 23 opt for the buyout; 21 decide to stay put and are given the relocation options based upon the Relocation Assistance Plan Standards as outlined in City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Section 9270.5. Option 1 — Relocate to OVE or other site within 50 miles • Relocation costs up to a maximum of$3000 per household, includes cost of disconnection and breakdown of the MH, cost of transportation of the MH and readily movable appurtenances to OVE, cost to move the contents of the MH and appurtenances to OVE, and the cost of hook-ups at OVE. Option 2 — Relocate to a site within 300 miles • Although not required to do so, HBCo will pay the transportation costs for the mobile home, readily movable appurtenances and contents for the additional 250 miles. 5 • Reimburse each owner an amount equal to 50% of the difference between one year's verified housing costs at the new location and one year's housing costs in the park, up to a maximum of$750. Option 3 — Purchase Original purchase price less depreciation at the rate of 4.7% per year from date of original purchase, to the date of the Notice of Intent (Oct 1, 1983), at least $4,500. • Cost of moving to new-housing up to $500. • Reimburse each owner an amount equal to 50% of the difference between one year's verified housing costs at the new location and one year's housing costs in the park, up to a maximum of$750. Apr 8, 1985 Mobile Home Park Relocation Assistance Plan (Revised) 2SD k 4'' Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park, Huntington Beach, CA • Prepared to comply with Huntington Beach Ordinance Section 9270.4(g) which .requires.prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use, the applicant must submit a "relocation assistance plan"which must be "found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing". Jul 1, 1985 Approval of plans and specifications for OVE, solicitation of bids for construction Aug 6, 1985 Newspaper article —"City near purchase of farm" describes the OVE MHP site and the circumstances of creation Aug 19, 1985 Resolution No. 5553 - Change of use to Vacant Land, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving a change of use to vacant land on Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park Aug 23, 1985 Request for Redevelopment Agency Action — Relocation Agreement with Huntington Beach Company regarding Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park , Sep 3, 1985 City of Huntington Beach & Redevelopment Agency agreement signed by RDA. Sep 6, 1985 Request for Council Action — Mobile Home park construction, ,cR► select bidder and authorize contract in the amount $508,937.50 Yam- D YcPA G Feb 1, 1986 City of Huntington Beach to notify HBCo of those moving to P" OVE Feb 15, 1986 Newspaper article—"An end to their Seaside Life', presents widow's comments about moving out of Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park, describes OVE MHP moving options and payments available to tenants Apr 1, 1986 HBCo & SeaCliff to terminate lease and close the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park May 22, 1986 Request for City Council Action -Approve attached lease and park regulations and the proposed name-"Ocean View Estates" for the park - June 2, 1986 Council Agenda — G-6, Rental Agreement— Rules & Name for new mobile home park City Council approves and authorizes the execution of the rental agreement, approves the park regulations and the proposed park name "OVE". (12 relocatee tenants have a lifetime estate with an initial rental rate of$160, being less than market) Jul 24, 1986 Dedication ceremonies for the new OVE Mobile Home Park. Aug 5, 1986 Newspaper article - "4-year fight over coach park ends", closure of Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park, dedication of Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park, brief history, quotes from Millie Hayes, recognition of the Huntington Beach Company, payment to coach owners, rental rate, and desirability of the park Sep 7, 1988 Master Lease Agreement — Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach and Driftwood Beach Club Mobile Home Owners Association for Ocean View Estates. Sep 26, 1988 Mobile Home Acquisition and Relocation Agreement-final (MARA) • New coach provision • Sale provision • "agreed to value" Feb 27, 1989 Letter to Pacific Trailer Park Coach Owners — Extends Driftwood Phase I relocation benefits to Pacific Trailer Park residents Aug 1, 1994 Request for City Council/Redevelopment Agency Action - Jones v. Redevelopment Agency, O.C.S.C. Case No. 62 30 62, Court supervised debits & credits settlement agreement with OVE I mobile home tenants Nov 10, 1994 Agreed Values— Driftwood Acquisition and Relocation Agreement, rent escalators discussed and examples given Jan 1, 1995 Mobile Home Residency Law Feb 5, 1996 Request for City Council/Redevelopment Agency Action — Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park Interim Lease Agreement Jan 1, 1997 Mobile Home Residency Law Jun 16, 1997 Request for City Council/Redevelopment Agency Action - Lease of Redevelopment Agency-owned mobile homes at Ocean View Estates (OVE), spaces 15,19,20,31 &44. Jun 24, 1997 City Attorney responses to RLS #96-380 - Driftwood acquisition and relocation agreement, sales of Ocean View Estates (OVE) mobile homes.. Oct 19, 1998 Request for City Council/Redevelopment Agency Action — Approval of Amended and Restated Mobile Home Acquisition and Relocation Agreement for Driftwood Mobile Home Park (AMARA) • Provides for the buyout of the remaining coaches at Driftwood Mobile Home Park (102) • Relocation of 13 Driftwood owners to OVE (8 owners relocate coaches, 5 owners exchange for coaches already at OVE, permission given to 18 current relocatees at OVE to sell to the Driftwood II relocatees at the buyout value. d • All prior Driftwood I relocatees and the additional 13 - Driftwood II relocatees given reduced rents ($208/mo initial + esc) in exchange for 20 year leases and releasing the City of Huntington Beach obligation to pay"Gap" payments for coaches. Dec 18, 1998 New Ocean View Estate Leases — Summary of Leases under terms of the Amended Mobile home Acquisition and Relocation Agreement (AMARA) Appendices Code of Good Practices Huntington beach Mobile Home Advisory Board "Code of Good Practices" to be followed by mobile home owners and mobile home park managers/owners in raising and resolving complaints and problems Mobile Home Park Rules and Regulations — October 8, 1997 1 ( � /117 OVE - Rules and Regulations for use of Clubhouse q 7" 2-7 OVE - Rental Agreement Life Estate S lei i l 3 Il 4 . < 0VE - Lease Agreement (Negotiated Driftwood Lease) OVE Rental Agreement (Mobile home & Space) OVE - Occupancy Agreement (Space Rental) OVE - Contract Terms (Spreadsheet Format) OVE - Space Map OVE - 1998 Payment Schedule (11/1/98 through 6/30/99) Mobile Home Park Rental Survey (4/7/95) Mobile Home Park Rental Survey (3/29/93) Mobile Home Residency Law (1/97) City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Section 9270.4 & 9270.5 5 �. g - J. I*�Iij) AbAjkS(-\� k f Council/Agency Meeting Held: 6s— 15— dd Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied VV W.City Clerk' )Ignature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 Department ID Number: AS 00-025 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY c `; MEMBERS ^- Iy S t SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, Executive Directoro,,/ c� 71 PREPARED BY: JOHN REEKSTIN,Administrative Services Director e SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OWNED MOBILE HOMES LOCATED IN OCEAN VIEW ESTATES MOBILE HOME PARK (SPACES 15, 19, & 20) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the Redevelopment Agency sell their three (3) remaining mobile homes located at Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park in spaces 15, 19, and 20? Funding Source: Net sale proceeds will be directed towards the establishment of reserve funds as part of a new enterprise fund for Ocean View Estates in FY '00-'01. Recommended Action: Motion to: (1) Authorize Real Estate Services to prepare the necessary documents and proceed with the sale of the mobile homes located in spaces 15, 19, and 20 with following list prices: Coach No. Listing Price 15 $69,000 - �s cYe�olrsi�•` 19 $72,000 - tilcrw� c(a sn�5 20 $70,000 _ (2) Grant Real Estate Services the authority to negotiate the final sales price. (3) Authorize the Director of Administrative Services and the Agency Clerk to execute any and all necessary documents approved as to form by the City Attorney to facilitate the sale of the mobile homes. 61,Alternative Action(s): (1) Deny authorization for mobile home sales. e - -7 REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-025 Analysis: Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park (OVE) is owned by the City of Huntington Beach, and is located on the northeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. OVE sits on,;approximately 4.2 acres acquired in the mid 1980's and provides for forty-four (44) mobile home sites for persons displaced as a result of the development of the Waterfront Project. As real property asset manager, the Real Estate Services Division performed an in-depth review and study of OVE for the purpose of establishing a management plan for the OVE asset using best business practices. The management plan delineates a financial basis for OVE operation until its projected closure in March 2019. Elements of the plan include a market rental survey, mobile home appraisals, cost estimates for maintenance, reserve funds analysis, and site management requirements. Market rental survey - a thorough rental survey of fourteen other mobile home parks in Huntington Beach was performed to establish an appropriate market rental rate for space in OVE. Mobile home appraisals —an appraisal of three (3) mobile homes owned by the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (Spaces No. 15, 19 and 20) as the basis for establishing the listing price and minimum acceptable price for negotiations. Also, an appraisal of one mobile home (Space No. 39), establishing the fair market value of the abandoned mobile home prior to removing it from OVE and the subsequent renting of that space at market rates. Cost estimates for maintenance —.a review of the existing maintenance contract, with inquiry and projection of costs for future maintenance requirements. Reserve funds —an examination of the funds necessary for the continued maintenance and repair of the infrastructure of OVE (i.e., roadway paving, irrigation and drainage systems, lighting, water, fencing, structures). Site management—an analysis of the management requirements with respect to personnel time, material resources, fees, permits, etc. r ' RCA OVE Mobile Home Sale -2- 05/05/00 4:50 PM REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-025 As part of best management practices, the policy guidelines for OVE operation are as follows: 1) Provide and collect space rent for privately owned mobile homes. * Mobile home housing is prone to frequent maintenance and care, requiring significant revenues to be set aside for inherent cost to maintain the mobile home in order to comply with the lease agreement, and the park rules and regulations. Privately owned mobile homes are the responsibility of the owner and must be kept up to the standard imposed by the lease agreement terms and conditions; as well as, the park Rules and Regulations. 2) Remove abandoned mobile homes from the park to provide additional spaces for rent at market rates for new mobile home placement. Currently, we have two mobile homes that are considered by real estate services to be abandoned in the park. One is-the result of the owner becoming award of the State of California due to mental and physical conditions. The other is the result of the tenant being deceased and the executor of the estate not removing the mobile home from the park per the lease agreement. 3) Maintain full occupancy of spaces in OVE. OVE is recognized in the mobile home community as being highly desirable. Real Estate Services receives 3-5 inquiries per week(without advertising) for occupancy requirements. Spaces in the park are subject to a premium and we have been approached by several brokers with respect to placement of new mobile homes in OVE. Negotiations are in progress. 4) Operate OVE as an enterprise asset. OVE has specific and recurring maintenance and care issues unique to the park. Status as an enterprise asset allows for the collection of all revenue sources (i.e., rents, fees, deposits, or other sources of revenue as appropriate). Also, the payment of all costs of operation, and the establishment of necessary reserve accounts to facilitate on-going maintenance of a high quality of life for the tenants. 5) Provide the highest quality of life for all OVE tenants. The enterprise asset approach to management and operation of OVE will provide the revenue necessary to maintain the high quality of life enjoyed by the tenants and insure the continued recognition of the City of Huntington Beach as a good landlord throughout the life of OVE. ;RCA OVE Mobile Home Sale -3- 05/05/00 4:50 PM REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-025 The mobile homes that the Redevelopment Agency owns are all approximately 11 years old and are starting to incur higher maintenance costs. In renting these homes, the health and safety standards require us to continually re-invest capital dollars at the end of each tenancy to return the living space to a good standard. Further, our cost to response to isolated call outs is expensive since the City does not retain permanent staff and must contract these services out. At this time, the market for mobile homes is at a peak providing the Revelopment Agency with an excellent opportunity to sell its mobile homes at elevated market prices. Based upon the.information provided above and the appraisal of the mobile homes owned by the Redevelopment Agency performed by an independent qualified appraiser: Real Estate Services requests authorization to prepare the necessary documents and proceed with the sale of mobile homes in spaces 15, 19 and 20, based upon the pricing information below. Coach No. Listing Price 15 $ 69,000 19 $ 72,000 20 $ 70,000 Net sale proceeds are to be allocated to the start-up reserves under the OVE enterprise asset account to be established for fiscal year 2000/2001. Environmental Status: None Attachment(s): City Clerk's . . - Number No. Description RCA Author: M. HEINEKE RCA OVE Mobile Home Sale -4- 05N0/00 9:33 AM Table of Contents ` d Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues a 5 O r—�c7 rr r�or j.r c7 UpdatedRedevelopment,Agency Debt Information�Memo a Policy:Questio_w/Issues Menwraridum-Dated`8/18/03...:............,............................... 2 Short Term Cash Flo*. ... ...:. ..`. 3 Long-Term Debt Analysis : 4' I:istmg of Financial Debt Related,Issues"provided to<Admin Services.w/attachments...... S Admrnistratrve°Services response Memo dated 9/12/02 w/attachments. ..:,,... _ 6 Administrative:Services response`Memo' on Ocean View-Estates..dated 10/23/02..... .. 7 Appraisal on'Shank House ... . . ... .8 YIN "Pt Uq Mt. kf r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH InterOffice Communication Economic Development Department C z 0 o W C1 CD TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmebers M VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator _ FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development ry DATE: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL ISSUES , On September 2, 2003, a study session was conducted with the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board regarding Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. During the course of this study session, we reviewed background information on Redevelopment Agency Debt, Short Term Cash Flows, and a Long Term Debt Analysis. Also included in the materials was a memorandum dated August 18, 2003, outlining a series of Policy Issues/Questions related to Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline staff s recommendations regarding the Policy Issues/Questions for Council/Redevelopment Agency consideration at a second study session. Given the increased likelihood that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to repay all debt and accrued interest, many of the previously identified alternatives which would have reduced the overall Agency debt are not being recommended. Based upon the input received in this study session, staff will return to the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board with a series of actions to address the implementation of the policy direction desired. For ease of reference, the recommendations are ordered in the same sequence as the Policy Issues/Questions listed in the attached memorandum dated August 18, 2003, which was included in the study session materials. Ocean View Estates 1. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of$39,210 for coach rental income to be applied against Redevelopment Agency Debt owed to the General Fund. 1} Z. The City Council should approve a transfer from the Ocean View Estates Fund to the Redevelopment Fund in the amount of$197,095 for coach sales proceeds form Agency owned coaches. 3. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of$92,854.07 for coach sales proceeds to be applied against Redevelopment Agency Debt owed to the General Fund. 4. The City Council has a number of options related to the net income from the operation of OVE for the year's prior to 2001-02, these include: A. Establish an appropriate amount of debt from the General Fund to the Park Acquisition& Development Fund reflecting the net income from OVE through 2001/02 which was deposited in the General Fund. This debt could be repaid over time as the financial situation of the General Fund improves. It is recommended that we use the most recent FY year's operating expenses versus revenues to determine a net income, including the reserve/replacement factors, and apply this net income factor to the $1,695,789 in revenue generated through 2001-02 rather than endeavoring to recreate the actual net operating income for each year during the period in question; or B. Recognize the historic use of GF for parks as an offset to this amount, including expenditures prior to the creation of the PA&DF. 5. The net OVE income after expenses and reserves has been going to the Park Acquisition & Development Fund since FY 2001/02. Emerald Cove 1. This debt should remain on the books as a debt of the Redevelopment Agency to the Park Acquisition& Development Fund pending the eventual sale of the project. As an pre-AB 1290 debt, it can be repaid at the end of the life of the Merged Project Area by the Agency utilizing property tax increment after the Agency is unable to collect tax increment other than for the repayment of Pre- 1290 debt. At the time of sale, and once the net proceeds of a sale are known, the City Council can determine if a portion of the proceeds from the sale should be used to retire a portion or all of this debt or if the net proceeds after repayment of other Emerald Cove debt should be retained as revenue for the General Fund. Business Development Expense 1. The City Council should approve a credit against Redevelopment Debt for the $2,886,474 in Business Development Expenses incurred by the Agency on the City's behalf between FY 91/92 and FY 00/01. 2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash flow records for the period in question would be difficult. Overhead Charges 1. The City Council should reclassify the $4,339,304 in overhead for FY 89/90 and 90/91, together with the annual accounting charges over that period, as the overhead charge appropriate for the period of 1989-2003. 2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash flow records for the period in question would be difficult. 3. To the best of our knowledge, no other direct overhead charges were paid directly other than the accounting charge since 1989. The Redevelopment Agency should modify the FY 2003/04 budget to transfer the full General Fund overhead charge established in the recent cost allocation study of $324,057 with the $100,000 accounting charge being eliminated since accounting and other overhead is addressed in the cost allocation study figure. The FY 2003/04 debt repayment to the General Fund should also be reduced by the $324,057 overhead charge. Beginning in FY 2004/05, when the cost allocation model is further refined, the Housing Set-aside Fund should also begin to make the appropriate cost allocation overhead transfer to the General Fund in each fiscal year. Shank House 1. The Redevelopment Agency should convey the Shank House to the City. While the City Council should acknowledge the value of the rent-free space provided to the General Fund, there should be no credit against debt for an assumed rent payment for prior years or the estimated value of the property at conveyance. 2. Not necessary since there are no annual rent credits being made. Capital Proiect Fund Debt 1. The debt should be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future. Interest Rate 1. No adjustment for the interest rates used in prior years is recommended. Land Acquisition/Debt 1. The Redevelopment Agency should convey its publicly used properties like the Downtown Paseos to the City. While the City Council should acknowledge the value of the land provided to the General Fund, there should be no credit against debt for the estimated value at conveyance. 2. The Redevelopment Agency should continue to own land leased for the purposes of development like the Hilton and the Hyatt parcels. As the development arm of the City, the Agency is best suited to own and manage these leased parcels which sometimes have on-going contractual commitments associated with them. When the parcels are conveyed to the City, perhaps at the end of the Redevelopment Agency's life, the value of the land should be acknowledged. Long-Term Debt Issues 1. On an annual basis, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency should strive to minimize to the greatest extent possible repayment of Pre-1290 debt in the form of debt repayment to the General Fund. There should be regular updates of the Long Term Debt Analysis to verify the continuing capacity of the Redevelopment Agency to repay the debt over the long-term, especially once tax increment can only be collected to repay pre-AB 1290 debt. 2. Non-tax increment revenues should not be applied to Pre-AB 1290 debt repayment to the greatest extent possible and should be used for Post AB 1290 debt repayment, capital, and operating expenses. As discussed above under Overhead Charges, the Redevelopment Agency should transfer its fully burdened annual overhead charge to the General Fund. 3. To the extent possible and with the consent of the developer to whom the agency has the contractual obligation, tax increment revenues should be used as the repayment source for the Developer advance on a number of transactions. These would include the Hyatt, the Strand, and the Bella Terra projects. In the case of the Hyatt and Strand, the Redevelopment Agency's share of the Transient Occupancy Tax can be freed up to be returned to the General Fund. The Agency would then make its payment of a contractually committed equivalent amount from its tax increment revenues. In the case of Bella Terra, this same approach would be used to reduce or eliminate the use of City sales tax as a source of repayment for the Developer Advance. 4. As discussed above, to the extent possible the Redevelopment Agency's share of Transient Occupancy Tax should be returned to the General Fund. Since the TOT from the Hilton is no longer contractually committed to the developer, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution for FY 2003/04 which would return the Redevelopment Agency's 6% share of the TOT to the General Fund. The amount of the debt repayment from the Redevelopment Agency to the City's General Fund would be reduced by the $705,000 estimated to be the increased amount of TOT flowing directly to the General Fund. Staff will be evaluating this option for FY 2004/05 for the Hyatt and will make recommendations in this regard as part of the FY 2004/05 budget process. An updated Short Term Cash Flow for the Redevelopment Agency is attached which illustrates the impact of the changes recommended. While, the recommended actions ensure that the General Fund will continue to receive the same level of support as currently budgeted, the actions do result in a lower amount considered to be debt repayment on the pre-AB 1290 debt. Over time, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency can make further modifications to the amount of funds provided in support to the General Fund in the context of the debt picture and the policy objective of preserving the pre-AB 1290 debt to the greatest extent possible for repayment after 2031. DCB Attachments l. Memorandum dated August 18, 2003 2. Updated Short Term Cash Flow Attachment 1 Memorandum dated August 18, 2003 Summary -Redevelopment Cash Flow- for Long Term Debt Projections (Non-Housing) 200/02 1 2 /02 2002103 1 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005108 1 2001ii07 Pro ected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :::..@. ,$7t :•::i�,. ;3..�8 2 4.. :::::$5,637... Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410,738 3.601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,627,317 8,913,863 9.092,140 Huntington Center 1,321,941 1,282,310 1.473,000 2,227.460 2,257,509 2,802,659 2,858,713 Oakvlew 626.368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592,154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415,244 383,121 441.000 449,820 458,816 467.993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409.000 417.160 425,524 434,034 442.715 Tax Increment(100%) 6,180,510 8.223,067 7,973,000 11,337,460 12,249,709 13.210,703 13,474,917 Tax Increment Less 20%Housing Set Aside 4,944,408 4,978,454 6,378,400 9,069,968 9,799,767 10,568,563 10,779,934 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 333,790 336,000 308,266 380,950 363,489 335,887 322,021 Main Pier 1,819,651 3,052,120 1,676,806 2.635,294 3,152,626 2.670.363 Huntington Center 0 0 0 942,000 593,000 573,621 Oakview 0 0 110.000 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 333,790 2,155,651 3,360,386 2,167,756 3,940,783 4,081,513 3,566,025 TOTAL Revenue 6,514,300 7.134.105 I,333.366 13.505.216 16.190.492 17,292,217 17,040,942 EXPENSES Debt Service Fund 7.621.978 6.411.288 9.734.018 14,445.969 15,439,501 15,697.563 15,823,201 Projects Fund 1,587,356 1,341,919 674.902 700,828 727,934 2,850,273 785.903 Bond Defeasance TOTAL EXPENSES $9,209,334 17,753,207 $10,408. 20 515.146.797 116,167,435 S18.547.837 116,609,105 NET Income ($2,695,034) ($619,102) $924,466 ($1,641,581) $23,057 ($1,255,620) $431.838 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE :•:•:$5,997;83I::::S8 354888: •:•:•51;27.9,363 Se;637,762:: :•:•:SS;660,840::•:::54:405;220 :::i�83Z;057: note:restricted cash= 4,759,000 CF-Aug03 Summary 11/20/2003 12:46 PM Redevelopment Debt Service Fund 2001102 1 2001102 2002(03 1 2003(04 2004105 2005108 1 2006107 Pro eoted Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE ,•6•; :•:S2 4,000::•:•:•:: ;4 :184::::•:( 98 ::::(..;28J: .) $8. 44;!)18 Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410,738 3,601.721 5,092,000 7.673,840 8.527,317 8,913,863 9,092,140 Huntington Center 1,321,941 1,282,310 1,473,000 1,502,460 1,532,509 2,302,659 2,858,713 Ezralow Increment 0 - 725,000 500,000 Oakview 626,368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592,154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415,244 383,121 441,000 449,820 458,816 467,993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417,180 425,524 434,034 442,715 Tax Increment(100%) 6,180,510 6,223,087 7,973,000 10.612,460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13,474,917 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 143.546 191,490 50,459 36.325 (25,637) (104,529) (169,855) Main Pier 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huntington Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakview 0 0 6 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 143,646 191,490 50,459 36,325 (25,637) (104,629) (169,855) TOTAL Revenue 6,324,056 6.414.557 8,023,459 10.648.785 12.224M ilium 13.305.IM EXPENSES Debt and Mandated Payments: Special G1F Payment 4,000,000 Transfer to Low Income Housing 1,236,102 1,245,000 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642.141 2,694,983 Debt Service-HBPFA 2,340,000 2,360,000 2,340.000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2.340,000 2,340,000 Transfer to General Fund(Debt Payment) 1,300,000 1,345,000 1,800.000 4,192,170 4,295,000 4,295,000 4,295,000 Business Development 378,044 355.322 412,728 287,322 295,942 304,820 313,965 General Fund Overhead Charge 324,057 333,779 343,792 354,106 City Attorney Charges 485,078 207,065 313,463 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Assessors Case Adjustment 697,684 697,684 239.037 243,818 248,694 Debt Service-Huntington National Bank 332,000 99.000 255,757 0 0 0 1 Repayment of Waterfront Advance 730,808 1,270,000 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 Repayment of Hunt Ctr Advance 1,581,000 1,581.000 1,581,000 Repayment of CIM Advance 673,000 673,000 673,000 CIM Additional Parking 100,000 100,000 100,000 Sec.108 Loan Payment 600,070 600,070 600,071 602.244 603,302 598,308 598,308 Pass Thru Agreements 253,000 199,831 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101 Repayment of Gas Tax Fund 1,279,000 ERAF 207,591 400,000 408,000 416,160 424,483 Mulligan Lawsuit Settlement 1,500,000 TOTAL Non Housing EXPENSES S7,621.978 96.41l.288 S9.734.018 S14.445.969 S15.439.501 575.697.563 S15.823.201 NET Income ($1,297,922) $3,269 ($1,710,559) ($3,797,184) ($3,215,429) ($2,591,389) ($2,518,139) EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE 1-$673,000 per year for 25 years CF-Aug03 Debt Redevelopment Projects Fund 2001/02 J 2001102 2002103 1 2003104 2004/05 1 20090-6 Pro'ected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :: 4 0 ;000::::58;917 0 :$13 4 :•:•:•:•516;634172• ::: 17 954;775: :•:•. 1.9 ;281: Revenue Interest Earnings 190,244 201,000 257,807 344,625 389,126 440,415 Main Pier 2,406,373 3,601,721 3,052,120 1,676,806 2,635,294 3,152,626 Huntington Center 0 1,282,310 0 0 942,000 593,000 Oakview 0 573,313 0 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 383,121 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 382,602 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Revenue 2,596,617 6.424,067 3,309.926 2,021,431 3,969,420 4,186,042 EXPENSES Salaries and Benefits 352,356 338,104 291,902 303,578 315,721 328,350 Operating Expenses 1,092,000 349,673 285,000 299,250 314,213 329,923 Sub Total 1,444,356 687,777 576,902 602,828 629,934 658,273 Capital Projects 5th Street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abdelmub Contract 135,000 71,142 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Edinger Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERAF Repayment 0 0 0 0 731,000 Housing Fund Repayment 0 0 0 0 1,363,000 SE Redevelopment Area 0 Trustee Fees 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Pr Year Encumbrances 575,000 Sub-Total 143,000 664,142 98,000 98,000 98,000 2,192,000 Total Projects Fund Expenses $1,587,366 $1,341,919 S674.902 $790,828 S727.93a $2,860,273 NET Income $1,009,261 $5,082,148 $2,635,024 $1,320,603 $3,238,486 $1,335,769 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE 55;930;265::::513;899;1:4$ �1b;�r34;17z::::::; 1i;854;7:T5 :521;.193;�61: ::::: 2z;529,0$0: CF-Aug03 Projects Redevelopment Housing Fund 2001102 2001/02 2002(05 12003104 12004105 12005106 2006/07 Projected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 499551::::•:$4984i000 :•:•:•:U;5f.i'676 :•:.:$5.326,265:::$4'351"104 •:•:$6i331'5B7:::$10'642825- Revenue Total Tax Increment Tax Increment(20%) 1,236.102 1,244,600 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642,141 2,694,983 SE Area Tax Increment(20%) 320.000 326,400 332,928 339,587 Interest 329,991 150,327 101.510 119.841 97,901 142,460 239,459 ERAF Repayment from 80% 0 0 0 0 0 731000 0 Payment from Main-Pier 0 0 0 0 0 1363000 0 TOTAL INCOME $1,566,093 $1,394,927 $1,696,110 $2,662,333 $2,874,242 $5,211,529 $3,274,029 Expenses Non-Discretionary Property Tax Collection Charge 10,563 10,563 10.563 10563 10563 10563 10563 Rental Housing Acquisition 750,000 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 Berge Development 650,000 0 650,000 0 0 0 Bowen Court 900,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 The Fountains 2,000,000 0 0 2.000.000 0 0 0 Repayment to Agency 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 Prior Year Encumbrances 85,000 83,648 Sub-Total 4,395,563 994,211 760,563 3,410,563 760,563 760,563 1,260,563 DISCRETIONARY Salaries&Benefits 64,703 60,665 67,938 71,335 74,902 78,647 82,579 Operating Expenses 50,400 12,475 52,920 55,566 58,344 61,262 64,325 Sub-Total 115,103 73,140 120,858 126,901 133,246 139,909 146,904 TOTAL EXPENSES $4,510,666 $1,067,351 $881,421 $3,537,464 $893,809 $900,472 $1,407,467 NET INCOME ($2,944,573) $327,576 $814,689 ($975,131) $1,980,433 $4,311,057 $1,866,562 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE :52555'278:•:-::•;•$4 1S'67B: ::::56328 65::::•:•:S4'361'134 :•:S6 331367:::$1A'642626 :S72 5091B7: CF-Aug03 Housing MAIN-PIER Project Area-Revenue Projections 2001102 1 2001102 2002103 2003104 2004105 1 200512006 200&2007 Projected Actual INCOME Tax Increment(100%) 3,410,738 3.601,721 4,692,000 5,193,840 7,827,317 8,697,863 9,092,140 New Tax Increment Hyatt 120,000 1,470,000 0 0 0 Waterfront Residential 0 280,000 880,000 350,000 216,000 CIM Project 0 0 0 130,000 350,000 0 0 Tax Increment SubTotal 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092,140 Interest 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Waterfront) 795,000 705,000 705,000 0 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Hyatt) 0 0 805,000 1,059,000 1,219,800 1,219,800 1,219,800 Ground Lease(Hyatt) 0 0 23,775 50,000 150,000 150,000 150.000 Abdelmuti Loan 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 Hilton Lease/RLM Ground Lease 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189 Waterfront Interim Rent 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189 T.O.T.(CIM) 0 475,869 480,628 485,434 CIM Parking Revenue 0 185,000 190,550 196,267 CIM-Additional Parking Revenue 30,000 30.000 30,000 Lease Payments(438 Main) 19,000 19,800 14025 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Sites Reimbursements 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 Town Square Loan Repayment 477,615 480,474 0 0 0 0 0 Mola Settlement 60,000 60,000 55,621 Property Sale-438 Main 887,513 Other Income SubTotal 2,406,373 1,819,651 3,052,120 1,676.806 2,635.294 3,152.626 2,670.383 TOTAL INCOME: CF-Aug03 M-P Attachment 3 Power Point Presentation Recommendations Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues Study Session December 15, 2003 Study Session - September 2, 2003 ■ Reviewed Background information on: ♦Debt ♦ Short-Term Cash Flow ♦Long-Term Debt Analysis ♦Policy Issue/Questions ■ Follow-up Study Session to address Policy Issues/Questions 6 1 Policy Issues/Questions Ocean View Estates ■ $ 39,210 Debt credit for each rental income ■ $197,095 Transfer from OVE fund for coach sales proceeds ■ $ 92,954 Debt credit for coach sales Policy Issues/Questions Ocean View Estates ■ Net Income Options: A. Create debt from General Fund to Park Acquisition & Development Fund, or B. Recognize General Fund historic expenditures as off set to P.A. & D.F. ■ OVE Net Income now going to P.A. & D.F. a Policy Issues/Questions Emerald Cove ■ Debt should remain on the books as a Redevelopment debt to Park Acquisition & Development Fund, pending the eventual sale of the project. Policy Issues/Questions Business Development Expense ■ $2,886,474 debt credit for prior years' expenses ■ No interest adjustment 04' 9aa 3 Policy Issues/Questions Overhead Charges ■ Reclassify $4,339,304 as overhead for 1982-2003. ■ No interest adjustment. ■ Modify FY 2003-04 to full $324,057 overhead charge; reduce debt repayment by net amount. ■ Institute overhead charge to Housing Fund in 2004-05. Policy Issues/Questions Shank House ■ Convey Shank House to the City, no rent credit. ■ No interest adjustment. 4 Policy Issues/Questions Capital Project Fund Debt ■ Debt should be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future. Interest Rate ■ No interest adjustment. Policy Issues/Questions Land Acquisition/Debt ■ Convey publicly used properties to the City, no credit against debt. ■ Continue to own land leased for development. FB_ Policy Issues/Questions Long-Term Debt Issues ■ Minimize repayment of Pre-1290 Debt. ■ Non-tax increment revenues applied towards Post-1290 debt, capital and operating. Policy Issues/Questions Long-Term Debt Issues ■ Utilize tax increment for repayment of developer advances and free up TOT/Sales Tax. ♦ Return Hilton TOT to General Fund and reduce debt repayment by same amount. 6 Next Steps... ■ Updated short-term cash flow illustrates changes. ■ Will return to City Council/Redevelopment Agency to implement Recommended Actions. RECEIVED. CITY CLERK HUNTINGTON BEACH.-CA G 21 P 3: 09 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL ISSUES Study Session September 2, 2003 Purpose of Study Session • Provide update on current status. • Answer outstanding debt & financial history questions. 6 Outline issues/policy questions. Seek general direction from City Council/ Redevelopment Agency. Members.. IS 1 Redevelopment Agency Debt Update September 30, 2002 Balance • Debt w/ offsetting income stream $ 0 m • Repaid by revenues 30 m • Site specific debt 16.8 m • Reimburse City 86.2 m • General Fund Advance 16.0 m $ 149.0 m s Redevelopment Agency Debt Update FY 2002/03 Repayment/Credits e GF Annual Debt Repayment $ 1,800,000 ® Business-Develop. Credit 464,210 ® Gas Tax Fund Repayment 1,300,000 ® Mid-year, 1-time GF Debt repayment 4,000,000 e Waterfront Wetlands Credit 3,556,003 ® Emerald Cove Fee Credit 243,000 $11,363,213 2 Redevelopment Agency Debt Background Redevelopment Agency's have to incur debt to collect property tax increment. * Debt created in early years through: • General Fund Direct Advances • Indirect Advances /overhead charges • Classifying capital projects as debt • Value of land transfers • Using higher interest rates a �a 7: Redevelopment Agency Debt Background * Borrowings from other sources: • Tax Allocation Bonds • Developer Advances * Debt structured to benefit the GF and special funds in the long term. 3 Redevelopment Agency Debt Background a Amount of debt in early to mid-19901s cause for concern given revenue decline. Auditors classified portion of debt to city as "considered possibly to not be repaid." FIB- Redevelopment Agency Debt Background e Current situation dramatically improved due to: • Project Area Merger • Improved economy/higher property values • Projects successfully implemented • Bonded Indebtedness refinanced • Risk shifted to developers • Cost containment / on-hands management 4 Redevelopment Agency Debt Background • Long-Term Debt Analysis shows all debt can be repaid. • Capacity exists to initiate new projects/ activities: • Generate ongoing GF revenues • Quality of life projects Historical / Policy Issues • Ocean View Estates • Emerald Cove • Business Development Expense • Overhead Charges • Shank House • Capital Project Fund Debit • Interest Rate • Land Acquisition/Debt . , 5 Long-Term Debt Issues $850 million cap on tax increment a $97 million collected through 2001/02 ® Debt classified as pre/post AB 1290 Post AB 1290 City debt fully repaid . A4 Long-Term Debt Issues 0 Ability to collect tax increment ends in 2033/34 • Except for Pre AB 1290 debt • Tax increment can be collected until Pre AB 1290 debt fully repaid or $850 million cap is reached 6 Long-Term Debt Issues a City debt fully repaid based upon current assumptions in • 2020/21 @ $5 million/year • 2043/44 @ $2 million/year a Under either option, it is not anticipated that the $850 million cap would be reached Long-Term Debt Issues 0 Manage debt to provide maximum benefit to community and preserve resources. 7 Options to Manage Debt * Determine which adjustments / policy changes to make regarding Debt * Review and redirect non-tax increment revenues * As circumstances warrant, reduce payments being made on pre- AB1290 debt City Council/ Redevelopment Agency Members 0 Clarifications a Questions Discussion Future Direction 8 The End 9 i Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to:`'Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied E, _ _q�y /y City r '4sii ature Council Meeting Date: February 2, 2004 Department I umber: ED 04-03 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION N l._ SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR/CHAIRMAN AND CITY COUNCIL � :�.,� MEMBERS/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS .'-<.- M SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator/Executive Director 6zd4d9 -;j T ' PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic.-Development/Deputy- Executive Director n CLAY MARTIN, Director of Administrative Services SUBJECT: Approve Redevelopment Agency/City Financial Modifications S N� 3�$ Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On September 2, 2003, and December 15, 2003, the Council/Redevelopment Agency conducted study sessions on Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. The recommended actions in this Request for Council/Redevelopment Agency Action begin to implement the direction outlined in the study sessions. Funding Source: The recommended actions and policy direction being affirmed do not result in any expenditures. There will be a number of budget modifications and changes in the balance sheet of the City and Redevelopment Agency as a result of the recommended actions. These will be reflected in the FY 2003-04 Financial Statement once completed. Recommended Action: Motion to: City Council: 1. Approve:_, a debt credit for the Redevelopment Agency applied against General Fund debt for the following: $39,210 for Ocean View Estates coach rental income; $92,854 for Ocean View Estates coach sales proceeds; $2,886,474 for Business Development expenses from FY 91/92 to FY 00/01. 2. Approve a transfer from the Ocean View Estates Fund to the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of$197,095 from coach sales proceeds. nn \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 04-03 3. Reclassify the $4,339,304 in General Fund overhead changes to the Redevelopment Agency for FY 89/90 and FY 90/91, together with annual accounting charges, as the overhead charges appropriate for the period of 1982 to 2003. 4. Authorize acceptance of the deed by the City for Shank House parcels. Redevelopment Agency: Motion to: 1. Approve the following modifications to the Redevelopment Agency's 2003-04 Budget: Appropriate.$324,057�as General Fund Overhead Charge; Eliminate,$1830 Ac02, counting Charge; Reduce Revenue by $705,000 for Hilton TOT shift to General Fund; Reduce General Fund-Debt- epayment by $926,227. 2. Adopt Resolution No. S`A� , electing to remit to the City of Huntington Beach Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues for the Waterfront Beach Hilton allocated to the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Authorize the Agency Chairperson and Agency Clerk to execute deeds from the Agency to the City for the Shank House parcels and send to the County for recordation after the City Clerk has affixed the acceptance Certificate of the City. Alternative Action(s): Modify or delete individual items under the recommended actions pursuant to Council/Agency direction. Analysis: On September 2, 2003, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency conducted a study session on Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. The materials prepared for this study session were designed to answer historic questions regarding Redevelopment Agency finances and how they related to the City. This package included background information of Redevelopment Agency debt, short-term cash flows, a long-term debt analysis, and supporting materials. Policy Issues and Questions for City Council/Redevelopment Agency consideration were outlined in a memorandum dated August 18, 2003 (copy attached). Based on current information, it is expected that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to fully repay its debt to the General Fund and all other City funds during the life of the Merged Redevelopment Project Area. This information also raised a number of issues associated with the need to manage the repayment of the Agency's debt to ensure that the City and Redevelopment Agency are able to take the maximize advantage of the tax increment revenues to be generated by the Merged Redevelopment Project Area given the $850 million cap on tax increment. On December 15, 2003, a second study session was held with the City Council/Redevelopment to review possible responses/actions related to the policy issues/questions raised at the September 2, 2003 study session. Given the increased G:\David\RCAS\financialactions.doc -2. 1/13/20041:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 04-03 likelihood that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to repay all debt and accrued interest, many of the previously identified alternatives which would have reduced the overall Agency debt were not recommended. At the December 15th study session, staff outlined its recommendations for each of these policy issues/questions in a memorandum of the same date (copy attached). The specific actions being recommended as part of this item conform to those outlined on December 15, 2003, with one exception. One policy issue where there were two alternatives outlined is being deferred to be addressed in a future Request for Council Action and that relates to Ocean View Estates and the net income from its operation prior to 2001-02. In addition, further research resulted in a determination that the Downtown Paseo Parcels have already been conveyed from the Redevelopment Agency to the City. Environmental Status: N/A Attachments City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Redevelopment Agency Resolution No3 ? . 2. Grant Deeds for the Shank House Parcels. 3. Memorandum dated December 15, 2003 with attachments. RCA Author: D. Biggs, ext. 5909 G:\David\RCAS\financialactions.doc -3- 1/21/2004 4:21 PM Redevelopment Agency Reso. 3a g ' ATT�ACHM�ENT }z # 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ELECTING TO REMIT TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES FOR THE WATERFRONT BEACH HILTON ALLOCATED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ORDINANCE NOS. 1 AND 2 WHEREAS, California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280.5 permits the redevelopment agency of any city that has levied a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Section 7280 to adopt an ordinance levying a transient occupancy tax if the city's ordinance entitles any person subject to the tax under the city's ordinance to credit the amount of taxes due to the agency against the payment of taxes due under the city's ordinance; and The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach("City") has adopted a transient occupancy tax ordinance consistent with the provisions of Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 7280 and 2780.5; and The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the "Agency") adopted Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2 levying a transient occupancy tax pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7280 applicable to the privilege of occupying a room or rooms in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging located within the entire Main-Pier subarea of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project area;and The Agency has now determined that the transient occupancy taxes for the Waterfront Beach Hotel, which is located within the Main-Pier Redevelopment subarea, are not required to enable the Agency to timely make payments to any developer pursuant to any outstanding Disposition and Development Agreements and/or Owner Participation Agreements by and between the Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment subarea, as the same may be amended from time to time; Commencing fiscal year 2003/2004,the Agency desires to remit to the City the transient occupancy tax revenues collected on the occupancy of a room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach Hotel allocated to the Agency pursuant to Agency Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2. NOW,THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. That the transient occupancy taxes applicable to the privilege of occupying a room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach Hotel are not required to enable the Agency to timely make payments to any developer pursuant to any outstanding Disposition and Development Agreements and/or Owner Participation Agreements by and between the Agency relating to redevelopment projects within the Main-Pier Redevelopment subarea, as the same may be amended from time to time. GARESOLUTtiUOMAgency-TOT Election.docI SECTION 2. That the transient occupancy tax revenues collected on the occupancy of a room or rooms at the Waterfront Beach Hotel and allocated to the Agency pursuant to Agency Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2 shall be remitted to the City of Huntington Beach commencing in fiscal year 2003/2004. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the.City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of February 2004. Chairpe ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: or g ncy Clerk ` I �Aenc y Attorney V �� REVIEWED AND QAPPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: Exe Ive Director Director of Economic Ifevelopment GARESOLUTM20MAgency-TOT Election.doc2 Res. No. 348 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 2nd day of February 2004 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: Cook, Houchen ABSTAIN: None Clerk of the Redevelopme . Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, CA Grant Deeds for Shank House Parcel ATTAC-H,-M E N T #2 ,. . RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Huntington Beach Real Estate Services Division P.O. Box 190/ 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach. P.O. Box 190/ 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APN(s): 024I147 OB&02NCORPORATED 4-47-29 REA GRANT DEED DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX$EXEMPT Location: 5'"Street&Walnut Avenue Signature of Declarant or Agent determining tax FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE AND POLITIC, hereby GRANT(S) to THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation, the real property in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: See Exhibit"A"for legal description Dated: 26f 2004 ATTEST: CATHY GREEN, hair City Clerkcy Redevelopment Agency DEED CERTIFICATION—CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY This is to certify that the Interest In real property conveyed by the Deed dated F6ekuA4Y S . 2004, from the HUNTINGTON BEACH By: � REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A PUBLIC BODY, CORPORATE_ AND Assists POLITIC to the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH is hereby accepted by nt�Be +City Attorney the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City Council of the This document is solely for the official business of the City of City of Huntington Beach pursuant to the authority conferred by Huntington Beach, as contemplated under Government Code Sec. Resolution No.3537 of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and should be recorded free of charge. adopted on August 7, 1972, and the grantee consents to the 6103 recordation thereof by Its duly authorized officer. Tax Exempt Government Agency CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Dated: S O CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH nnie Brockway,City Clerk BY: By: CONNIE BROCKWAY,CIVIC dGr CONNIE BROCKWAY,CIVIC CITY CLERK Aga-.,, CITY CLERK` /,4)o�� MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING LINE Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190/2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Project Name: APN(s): 024-147-08&024-147-29 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of Q ! r i A n ' County of . r On before me, a �pGersonally Date Name&Pte of Officer CLe,Jane Doe Notary Public) appeared //• �� r//�g sS /S 44 Na� KsCl2l��C EV personally known to me -OR- to be the person(s) whose name(s) i are bscribed to the within instrument and acknqg&l g me that he/sh they ecuted the same in his/he their uthorized capacity(ies), d that by his/he their signatures on the instrument the person(s), or the entity u n behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. KELLY tOUiSE MANDIC Commission # 1372899 Z WITNESS hand and o cial seal.. Notary Public - California ; Orange County My Comm.Expires Sep 1,2006 Signature of Notary -----------------------------------------OPTIONAL--------------------------------------- 7hough the data below is.not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons rely/ng on the document and could prevent fraudulent. removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document _(�) {^!q Y) T_ Document Date: Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: .Capacity(ies) Claimed by Seller(s) Signer's Name Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact Right Thumbprint of ❑ Attomey-in-Fact Right Thumbprint of Signer Signer ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other ❑ Other Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: EXHIBIT "A". Parcel 1: Lots 2 and 4 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach tract, as per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California.. Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet. Parcel 2: Lot 6 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach tract, as per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet. Parcel 3: The southwesterly 3 feet of the southeasterly 48 feet of Lot 8 of Block 204 in the Huntington Beach tract, as per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. Except therefrom the southeasterly 44 feet. Excepting and reserving all oil, hydrocarbon substances and minerals of every kind and character lying more than 500 feet below the surface of said land, together with the right to drill into, through, and to use and: occupy all parts of said. land.lying more than 500 feet below the surface thereof for any and all purposes incidental to the exploration for and production of oil, gas, hydrocarbon substances or minerals from said land or other lands but without, however, any right to use either the surface of said land or any portion of said land within 500 feet of the surface for any purpose or purposes whatsoever. Memorandum Dated 12/15/03 ATTACH, MENT . #3 nil CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH InterOffice Communication Economic Development Department TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmebers VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development , DATE: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL ISSUES On September 2, 2003, a study session was conducted with the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board regarding Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. During the course of this study session, we reviewed background information on Redevelopment Agency Debt, Short Term Cash Flows, and a Long Term Debt Analysis. Also included in the materials was a memorandum dated August 18, 2003, outlining a series of Policy Issues/Questions related to Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline staffs recommendations regarding the Policy Issues/Questions for Council/Redevelopment Agency consideration at a second study session. Given the increased likelihood that the Redevelopment Agency will be able to repay all debt and accrued interest, many of the previously identified alternatives which would have reduced the overall Agency debt are not being recommended. Based upon the input received in this study session, staff will return to the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board with a series of actions to address the implementation of the policy direction desired. For ease of reference, the recommendations are ordered in the same sequence as the Policy Issues/Questions listed in the attached memorandum dated August 18, 2003, which was included in the study session materials. Ocean View Estates 1. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of$39,210 for coach rental income to be applied against Redevelopment Agency Debt owed to the General Fund. 2. The City Council should approve a transfer from the Ocean View Estates Fund to the Redevelopment Fund in the amount of$197,095 for coach sales proceeds form Agency owned coaches. 3. The City Council should approve a credit for the Redevelopment Agency in the amount of$92,854.07 for coach sales proceeds to be applied against Redevelopment Agency Debt owed to the General Fund. 4. The City Council has a number of options related to the net income from the operation of OVE for the year's prior to 2001-02, these include: A. Establish an appropriate amount of debt from the General Fund to the Park Acquisition & Development Fund reflecting the net income from OVE through 2001/02 which was deposited in the General Fund. This debt could be repaid over time as the financial situation of the General Fund improves. It is recommended that we use the most recent FY year's operating expenses versus revenues to determine a net income, including the reserve/replacement factors, and apply this net income factor to the $1,695,789 in revenue generated through 2001-02 rather than endeavoring to recreate the actual net operating income for each year during the period in question; or B. Recognize the historic use of GF for parks as an offset to this amount, including expenditures prior to the creation of the PA&DF. 5. The net OVE income after expenses and reserves has been going to the Park Acquisition &Development Fund since FY 2001/02. Emerald Cove 1. This debt should remain on the books as a debt of the Redevelopment Agency to the Park Acquisition & Development Fund pending the eventual sale of the project. As an pre-AB 1290 debt, it can be repaid at the end of the life of the Merged Project Area by the Agency utilizing property tax increment after the Agency is unable to collect tax increment other than for the repayment of Pre- 1290 debt. At the time of sale, and once the net proceeds of a sale are known, the City Council can determine if a portion.of the proceeds from the sale should be used to retire a portion or all of this debt or if the net proceeds after repayment of other Emerald Cove debt should be retained as revenue for the General Fund. Business Development Expense 1. The City Council should approve a credit against Redevelopment Debt for the $2,886,474 in Business Development Expenses incurred by the Agency on the City's behalf between FY 91/92 and FY 00/01. 2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash flow records for the period in question would be difficult. Overhead Charges 1. The City Council should reclassify the $4,339,304 in overhead for FY 89/90 and 90/91, together with the annual accounting charges over that period, as the overhead charge appropriate for the period of 198�2003. 2. No adjustment for interest accrual is recommended since recreation of exact cash flow records for the period in question would be difficult. 3. To the best of our knowledge, no other direct overhead charges were paid directly other than the accounting charge since 1989. The Redevelopment Agency should modify the FY 2003/04 budget to transfer the full General Fund overhead charge established in the recent cost allocation study of $324,057 with the $100,000 accounting charge being eliminated since accounting and other overhead is addressed in the cost allocation study figure. The FY 2003/04 debt repayment to the General Fund should also be reduced by the $324,057 overhead charge. Beginning in FY 2004/05, when the cost allocation model is further refined, the Housing Set-aside Fund should also begin to make the appropriate cost allocation overhead transfer to the General Fund in each fiscal year. Shank House 1. The Redevelopment Agency should convey the Shank House to the City. While the City Council should acknowledge the value of the rent-free space provided to the General Fund, there should be no credit against debt for an assumed rent payment for prior years or the estimated value of the property at conveyance. 2. Not necessary since there are no annual rent credits being made. Capital Project Fund Debt 1. The debt should be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future. Interest Rate 1. No adjustment for the interest rates used in prior years is recommended. Land Acquisition/Debt 1. The Redevelopment Agency should convey its publicly used properties like the Downtown Paseos to the City. While the City Council should acknowledge the value of the land provided to the General Fund, there should be no credit against debt for the estimated value at conveyance. 2. The Redevelopment Agency should continue to own land leased for the purposes of development like the Hilton and the Hyatt parcels. As the development arias of the City, the Agency is best suited to own and manage these leased parcels which sometimes Have on-going contractual commitments associated with them. When the parcels are conveyed to the City, perhaps at the end of the Redevelopment Agency's life, the value of the land should be acknowledged. Lone-Term Debt Issues 1. On an annual basis, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency should strive to minimize to the greatest extent possible repayment of Pre-1290 debt in the form of debt repayment to the General Fund. There should be regular updates of the Long Term Debt Analysis to verify the continuing capacity of the Redevelopment Agency to repay the debt over the long-term, especially once tax increment can only be collected to repay pre-AB 1290 debt. 2. Non-tax increment revenues should not be applied to Pre-AB 1290 debt repayment to the greatest extent possible and should be used for Post AB 1290 debt repayment, capital, and operating expenses. As discussed above under Overhead Charges, the Redevelopment Agency should transfer its fully burdened annual overhead charge to the General Fund. 3. To the extent possible and with the consent of the developer to whom the agency has the contractual obligation, tax increment revenues should be used as the repayment source for the Developer advance on a number of transactions. These would include the Hyatt, the Strand, and the Bella Terra projects. In the case of the Hyatt and Strand, the Redevelopment Agency's share of the Transient Occupancy Tax can be freed up to be returned to the General Fund. The Agency would then make its payment of a contractually committed equivalent amount from its tax increment revenues. In the case of Bella Terra, this same approach would be used to reduce or eliminate the use of City sales tax as a source of repayment for the Developer Advance. 4. As discussed above, to the extent possible the Redevelopment Agency's share of Transient Occupancy Tax should be returned to the General Fund. Since the TOT from the Hilton is no longer contractually committed to the developer, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution for FY 2003/04 which would return the Redevelopment Agency's 6% share of the TOT to the General Fund. The amount of the debt repayment from the Redevelopment Agency to the City's General Fund would be reduced by the $705,000 estimated to be the increased amount of TOT flowing directly to the General Fund. Staff will be evaluating this option for FY 2004/05 for the Hyatt and will make recommendations in this regard as part of the FY 2004/05 budget process. An updated Short Term Cash Flow for the Redevelopment Agency is attached which illustrates the impact of the changes recommended. While, the recommended actions ensure that the General Fund will continue to receive the same level of support as currently budgeted, the actions do result in a lower amount considered to be debt repayment on the pre-AB 1290 debt. Over time, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency can make further modifications to the amount of funds provided in support to the General Fund in the context of the debt picture and the policy objective of preserving the pre-AB 1290 debt to the greatest extent possible for repayment after 2031. DCB Attachments 1. Memorandum dated August 18, 2003 2. Updated Short Term Cash Flow ti Attachment 1 Memorandum dated y ff August 189 2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH / L i Interoffice Communication Economic Development Department TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development . DATE: August 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Financial Policy Issues/ Questions The issue of Redevelopment Agency debt has been a topic of concern for many years. While Redevelopment Agency debt and financial history have been carefully documented since the 1995/96 fiscal year, some questions remained unanswered about prior years. The Administrative Services Department recently responded to a series of questions designed to address many of these historical gaps in information. These very complete " responses, together with prior research, represent the best information available. Further .:.:.. research is not likely to result in additional information, or at least not at a level that would warrant additional investment of staff time or energy. As such, this information should be presented to the City Council to provide a comprehensive response to these lingering questions. It is suggested that the information be the topic of a future City Council Study Session, with the policy issues addressed through a Council action at a subsequent meeting. The goal being to "put to rest" past issues and establish a new basis for going forward. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the few remaining pieces of information needed and the policy issues to be addressed. Ocean View Estates 1. $39,210 in Redevelopment coach rental income went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 2. $197,095 in sales proceeds from Redevelopment-Agency owned coaches went to the OVE Fund. Should there be a transfer from the OVE Fund or a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 3. $92,854.07 in much earlier sales proceeds from Redevelopment Agency-owned coaches went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 4. OVE generated $1,695,789 in space rental through FY 01-02. This revenue was deposited into the General Fund. The operating costs for this same period have not yet been identified. Once it has been identified, and we can calculate the Net Operating Income, should this prior years' Net Operating Income be transferred from the General Fund as rent to the PA and DF? 5. Verify the net OVE Enterprise income is currently going to the PA and DF as rent. Emerald Cove The recent City Council actions on Emerald.Cove addressed many of the issues related to this project. The ultimate goal now is the eventual sale of the property and the repayment of debt. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency Debt to the PA and DF proposed to be paid upon sale be reclassified as a debt of the Emerald Cove Fund since the Agency no longer owns the property and it has been conveyed it to the City? Business Development Expense The Redevelopment Agency has paid the operating expenses for the Business Development Division since its inception. Starting in Fiscal Year 01/02, the Business Development operating expense has been treated as an advance from the Redevelopment Agency and credited against Agency debt owed to the General Fund. 1. $2,886,474 has been advanced from FY 91-92 to FY 00-01. The City Council should authorize a credit against Redevelopment Agency debt for this updated number. 2. Should there also be an interest credit calculated for each year based upon the interest rate used for the Redevelopment debt in that year? Overhead CharlZes The Redevelopment Agency currently pays approximately $100,000 each year for accounting services. In 1989, there was $2,255,560 booked as Agency debt for a City overhead charge. In 1990, another $2,083,744 was added as debt for overhead in that year for a total of $4,339,304. Interest has accrued on this amount since the debt was booked. 1. Should these extremely high overhead charges, together with the annual accounting charge, be reclassified as overhead appropriate to the period of 1989-2003? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these re-spread charges? 3. Verify that there was no other overhead charges directly paid in subsequent years. Shank House The Redevelopment Agency-owned Shank House has been used exclusively as a police substation since it was acquired and rehabilitated. An April 2002 appraisal established that the fair market rent of the building would be$6,485/month or$77,820/year. 1. Should an annual rent payment be calculated for each year of occupancy and credited against Redevelopment Agency debt to the General Fund? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these annual rent credits? Capital Proiect Fund Debt The information provided by Administrative Services documents that this debt was due to the cost of City capital improvement projects in redevelopment areas that were made as part of the normal course of business being booked as Redevelopment Debt. 1. Should this debt be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future or should it and accrued interest be reclassified as an expenditure of the originating fund? Interest Rate Redevelopment Agency debt currently accrues interest at an annual rate equal to the average annual return for the year on the City's pooled investments. This represents the opportunity costs. In prior years, a much higher rate of interest was charged. 1. Should the total amount of accrued interest be recalculated using an annual rate equal to the average annual return for each year on the City's pooled investments? Land Acquisition /Debt A large portion of the Redevelopment Agency's debt owed to the City's General Fund is due to the Agency's acquisition of the Waterfront site from the City. The City, as the parent entity of the Redevelopment Agency, will inherit the Redevelopment Agency's assets at the end of its life. These assets will include all real property owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and include properties like the Hilton site with its-ground rent, and the Hyatt site with its ground rent and participation rent. l. Should the Redevelopment Agency convey certain real property like the Downtown paseos to the City at current value or at cost and receive a credit against General Fund debt? 2. Should the Hilton parcel and the Hyatt parcel be conveyed to the City at their current values or acquisition cost, now rather than at the end of the Agency's life, and receive a credit against General Fund debt? Long-Term Debt Issues It is important that the Redevelopment Agency's debt be managed in a manner to ensure that all tax increment revenues can be collected over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan and State Law govern the duration that the Redevelopment Agency can collect tax increment for the repayment of debt. In particular, there is a threshold after which the Redevelopment Agency can only collect tax increment for pre- AB 1290 debt. AB 1290 was the Redevelopment Reform Act adopted in 1994. The Administrative Services Department advises us that all post AB 1290 debt has now been repaid. As such, each dollar of debt repayment made for pre-AB 1290 debt will mean we will forgo an equal amount after the AB 1290 time limit is reached in approximately 2031. To the extent that there is Pre-AB 1290 debt remaining unpaid after 2031, tax increment revenue can continue to be collected until this debt is fully repaid as long as it is within the $850 million cumulative cap on tax increment. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency has a few non-property tax increment revenue sources, including ground rent, transient occupancy taxes and participation payments. To the extent these revenues are used to repay pre-AB 1290 debt, additional future property tax increment will be forgone. Long-term cash flow prepared which will assist us in analyzing these issues and the draft is currently being updated to reflect recent debt repayments. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency increase its capital project and/or operating expenditures and reduce its Pre AB 1290 debt repayment to ensure no tax increment revenues are forgone? 2. Should non-tax increment revenues be set aside for capital or other operating expenses? 3. Should the Agency utilize only its tax increment revenues as the repayment source for obligations like repayment of Hyatt Developer Advance, including non-Hyatt generated tax increment, in lieu of non-tax increment revenues? 4. Should the Redevelopment Agency / City division of transient occupancy tax be rescinded with the TOT revenue reverting to the City in order to obligate additional tax increment? (Need to ensure we meet contractual obligations to developers.) As a point of reference, in FY 2001-02, the City's "contribution" or 15% share of property tax increment would have been $933,450. This compares to the $1,700,000 in debt repayment made to the General Fund in the same year. In addition, Redevelopment Agency facilitated projects directly add revenues to the City's General Fund each year. For example, the City share of Transient Occupancy Tax for the current fiscal year through June for the Hilton and from its opening in January through June for the Hyatt has totaled $592,000. DCB Attachment 2 Updated Short Term Cash Flow Summary - Redevelopment Cash Flow - for Long Term Debt Projections (Non-Housing) 1 2001102 1 2001102 2002103 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005106 1 200610_7__� o'g2g Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410.738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9.092,140 Huntington Center 1,321,941 1.282,310 1,473,000 2.227,460 2,257,509 2,802,659 2.858.713 Oakview 626,368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592.154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415,244 383.121 441,0D0 449,820 458,816 467,993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409.000 417.180 425.524 434,034 442.715 Tax Increment(100%) 6,160,510 6,223.067 7,973,000 11,337,460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13,474.917 Tax Increment Less 20%Housing Set Aside 4,944,408 4,978,454 6,378,400 9,069,968 9,799,767 10,568,563 10,779,934 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 333,790 336,000 308.266 380,950 363.489 335,887 322,021 Main Pier 1,819.651 3,052,120 1,676,806 2,635,294 3,152,626 2.670,383 Huntington Center 0 0 0 942,000 593.000 573,621 Oakview 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 333,790 2,165,651 3,360,386 2,167.756 3,940,783 4,081,513 3,566,025 TOTAL Revenue 6,514,300 7-134,105 ILUJau LIJAja 16.190.422 17,222,217 17.240.942 EXPENSES Debt Service Fund 7,621,978 6,411.288 9,734.018 14,445.969 15.439,501 15,697,563 15,823.201 Projects Fund 1,587,356 1,341.919 674.902 700,828 727,934 2,850,273 785,903 Bond Defeasance TOTAL EXPENSES $9,209,334 S7,753,207 S10,408,920 S15,146,797 S16,167,435 118,547,637 S16&92= NET Income ($2,695,034) ($619,102) $924,466 ($1,641.581) S23,057 (S1,255,620) S431.838 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE S4;405;270r+: note:restricted cash= 4,759,000 CF-Aug03 Summary 1112012003 12:46PM Redevelopment Debt Service Fund 2001102 2001102 2002103 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005106 1 2005/07 Pro'ected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :::.., 6 :•:52 ;000:::•:•:;• ;488, . :::::.....184:::::( 98 ::::i..:263: .) $&,.44,$16 Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410,738 3,601.721 5,092,000 7.673,840 8,527,317 8,913.863 9,092,140 Huntington Center 1,321,941 1,282,310 1,473,000 1,502.460 1,532,509 2,302,659 2,858,713 Ezralow Increment 0 725.000 500,000 Oakview 626,368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592,154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415,244 383.121 441,000 449,820 458,816 467,993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417,180 425,524 434,034 442,715 Tax Increment(100%) 6,180,510 6,223,067 7,973,000 10,612,460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13,474,917 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 143,546 191,490 50.459 36,325 (25,637) (104,529) (169,855) _ Main Pier 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huntington Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakview 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 143,546 191,490 50,459 36,325 (25,637) (104,529) (169,856) TOTAL Revenue 6,324,955 6.414.557 8,023,459 10.648.785 12.224.073 13.106.175 13.305= EXPENSES Debt and Mandated Payments: Special G/F Payment 4,000,000 Transfer to Low Income Housing 1,236,102 1,245,000 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449.942 2.642.141 2,694,983 Debt Service-HBPFA 2,340,000 2,360,000 2,340,000 2,340.000 2,340,000 2,340.000 2,340,000 Transfer to General Fund(Debl Payment) 1,300,000 1,345.000 1,800,000 4,192,170 4.295,000 4,295.000 4,295.000 Business Development 378,044 355,322 412,728 287,322 295.942 304.820 313,965 General Fund Overhead Charge 324,057 333.779 343.792 354.106 City Attorney Charges 485.078 207,065 313,463 500,000 500.000 500.000 500,000 Assessor's Case Adjustment 697,684 697,684 239.037 243,818 248.694 Debt Service-Huntington National Bank 332,000 99,000 255,757 0 0 0 1 Repayment of Waterfront Advance 730,808 1,270,000 1,400.000 1,428,000 1,456,560 Repayment of Hunt Ctr Advance 1.581,000 1,581,000 1,581.000 Repayment of CIM Advance' 673,000 673,000 673.000 CIM Additional Parking 100,000 100,000 100,000 Sec.108 Loan Payment 600.070 600,070 600.071 602,244 603,302 598,308 598,308 Pass Thru Agreements 253,000 199,831 200,000 210,000 220.500 231,525 243,101 Repayment of Gas Tax Fund 1,279,000 ERAF 207,591 400,000 468,000 416,160 424,483 Mulligan Lawsuit Settlement 1,500,000 TOTAL Non Housing EXPENSES $7,621,978 56.411.288 59.734.018 S14.445.969 S15.439.501 S15.697.563 $15,823,201 NET Income ($1,297,922) $3,269 ($1,710,559) ($3,797,184) ($3,215,429) ($2,591,389) ($2,518,139) EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE 1-$673,000 per year for 25 years CF-Aug03 Debt Redevelopment Projects Fund 2001/02 2001102 200ZW 1 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005106 Pro'ected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 4 02;000::::58;917tt00 :::513 48:•:::516;634172 :::517 954;775: 21.93,461: Revenue 1 Interest Earnings 190,244 n1,000 257.807 344,625 389,126 440.415 1 Main Pier 2,406,373 3,601,721 3,052,120 1,676,806 2,635,294 3,152,626 Huntington Center 0 1,282,310 0 0 942,000 593,000 Oakview 0 573,313 0 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 383,121 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 382,602 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Revenue 2,596,617 6,424,067 3,309,926 2,021,431 3,966,420 4,186,042 EXPENSES Salaries and Benefits 352,356 338,104 291,902 303,578 315,721 328,350 Operating Expenses 1,092,000 349,673 285,000 299,250 314,213 329,923 Sub Total 1,444,356 687,777 576,902 602,828 629,934 658,273 Capital Projects 5th Street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abdelmuti Contract 135,000 71,142 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Edinger Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERAF Repayment 0 0 0 0 731,000 Housing Fund Repayment 0 0 0 0 1,363,000 SE Redevelopment Area 0 Trustee Fees 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Pr Year Encumbrances 575,000 Sub-Total 143,000 664,142 98,000 98,000 98,000 2,192,000 Total Projects Fund Expenses $1,587,356 $1,341,919 $674,902 $700,828 $727,234 S2.850.273 NET Income $1,009,261 $5.082.148 $2,635,024 $1,320,603 $3,238.486 $1,335.769 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE ::::::S5;Q30;Z5t: Sf3;899;1:k8:.: 515.8.3 ;172: ::557;964;7:75: ::52�;193;2s1: ::Sz2;5�3,t330: CF-Aug03 Projects Redevelopment Housing Fund 2001102 1 2001102 2002109 12003104 12004105 12005106 12006107 Projected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE :S d99 851:::::$4'184-000 :•'"::$4'St1;57fi" $5;326265:::$4351'134 :.:"$6;331;557::":510,642,625" Revenue Total Tax Increment . Tax Increment(20%) 1,236,102 1.244,600 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642,141 2,694.983 SE Area Tax Increment(206/6) 320,000 326,400 332,928 339,587 Interest 329,991 150.327 101,510 119,841 97,901 142.460 239,459 ERAF Repayment from 80% 0 0 0 0 0 731000 0 Payment from Main-Pier 0 0 0 0 0 1363000 0 TOTAL INCOME $1,566,093 $1,394,927 $1,696,110 $2,562,333 $2,874,242 $5,211,629 $3,274,029 Expenses Non-Discretionary Property Tax Collection Charge 10,563 10,563 10,563 10563 10563 10563 10563 Rental Housing Acquisition 750,000 0 750.000 750.000 750,000 750,000 750,000 Berge Development 650.000 0 650,000 0 0 0 Bowen Court 900,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 The Fountains 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 Repayment to Agency 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 Prior Year Encumbrances 85,000 83,648 Sub-Total 4,395,563 994.211 760,563 3,410,563 760.563 760,563 1,260,563 DISCRETIONARY Salaries&Benefits 64.703 60,665 67,938 71.335 74.902 78,647 82,579 Operating Expenses 50,400 12,475 52.920 55,566 58,344 61,262 64,325 Sub-Total 115,103 73,140 120,858 126,901 133,246 139,909 146,904 TOTAL EXPENSES $4,510,666 $1,067,351 $881,421 $3,537,464 $893,809 $900,472 $1,407,467 NET INCOME ($2,944,573) $327,576 $814,689 ($975,131) $1,980,433 $4,311,057 $1,866,562 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE >:32555"Z78::•:•:>$4 }}'S76: ?:"Sb 326 65::}}::S4'351'434 :•:"$6 331"567 :<$10'642526 :$1D5D9187: CF-Aug03 Housing MAIN-PIER Project Area-Revenue Projections 2001102 2001102 2002103 2003104 2004105 200512006 2006/2007 Projected Actual INCOME Tax Increment(100%) 3,410,738 3,601.721 4,692,000 5,193.840 7,827,317 8,697,863 9,092,140 New Tax Increment Hyatt 120,000 1,470,000 0 0 0 Waterfront Residential 0 280,000 880,000 350,000 216,000 CIM Project 0 0 0 130,000 350,600 0 0 Tax Increment SubTotal 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092,140 Interest 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Waterfront) 795,000 705,000 705,000 0 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Hyatt) 0 0 805,000 1,059,000 1,219,800 1.219,800 1,219,800 Ground Lease(Hyatt) 0 0 23,775 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Abdelmuti Loan 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340.505 Hilton Lease/RLM Ground Lease 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124.189 Waterfront Interim Rent 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189 T.O.T.(CIM) 0 475,869 480,628 485,434 CIM Parking Revenue 0 185,000 190,550 196,267 CIM-Additional Parking Revenue 30,000 30,000 30,000 Lease Payments(438 Main) 19,000 19,800 14025 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Sites Reimbursements 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 Town Square Loan Repayment 477,615 480,474 0 0 0 0 0 Mola Settlement 60,000 60,000 55,621 Property Sale-438 Main 887,513 Other Income SubTotal 2,406,373 1,819,651 3,052,120 1,676,806 2,635,294 3,152,626 2,670,383 TOTAL INCOME:::: CF-Aug03 M-P RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Economic Development SUBJECT: APPROVE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY FINANCIAL MODIFICATIONS COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 2, 2004 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases,Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable .... ..... EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS - REVIEWED RETURNED� FOR ED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM (Below • . For Only) RCA Author: D Biggs, ext. 5909 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RLS"°: REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Assn To Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Date . 2/5/04 Date: Request made by: Telephone: Department: 2/5/04 Liz Ehring 5405 Clerk INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: ❑ Ordinance/Resolution ❑ Opinion ❑ Contract/Agreement (Allow 5-20 working days)* (Allow 20 working days)* (Allow 15-20 working days)* ❑ General Legal Assistance ® Document Review (Ongoing) (Allow 2-10 working days)* *All deadlines are based on the date the City Attorney's Office receives the RLS. This request was reviewed and approved. Sigiiaift6aof bepart t Head COMMENTS Please identify.all attachments to this RLS. Approve to form & provide attestation-line on Grant Deed for clerk re RDA to approve redevelopment agency/city financial modifications I Shaded areas for City Attorney's Office use only. This request for Legal Services has been assigned to Attorney Ql extension His/her secretary is , extension Notes: Date Completed: RLS form 2/5/2004 1:16 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interoffice Communication Economic Development Department c_ o z TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Z C. yew:=gym VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator '� g—+_<C= -c c-)r-: r w -" o < FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development C-) '' c DATE: August 19, 2003 o n 0 SUBJECT: Study Session on "Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues" - September 2, 2003 Attached are background materials for the Study Session of September 2nd on Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues. These materials are being provided to you in advance of the City Council Agenda in order to allow you additional time to review the information. The materials include the following: 1. Updated Redevelopment Agency Debt Information Memorandum dated August 18, 2003. 2. Policy Questions/Issues Memorandum dated August 18, 2003. 3. Short-Term Cashflow. 4. Long-Term Debt Analysis: • Assuming$5 Million Repayment on City-Debt Starting in 2003/04 • Illustrating$2 Million Repayment on City Debt Continuing 5. Listing of Financial Debt Related Issues Provided to Administrative Services with attachments. 6. Administrative Services Response Memorandum dated September 12, 2002 with attachments. 7. Administrative Services Response Memorandum on Ocean View Estates dated October 23, 2002 w/attachments. 8. Appraisal on Shank House. I am looking forward to responding to your questions on September 2nd ***PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING THE BINDER WITH THESE MATERIALS TO THE STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 2nd*** DCB Attachments xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney William P. Workman,Assistant City Administrator c5;4i;1_q1L1 SesS F CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interoffice Communication Economic Development Department TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: August 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Updated Redevelopment Agency Debt Information On October 16, 2000, 1 provided the City Council with a memorandum entitled Redevelopment Agency Debt Information (Attachment 1). The purpose of this memorandum is to update this information. As of September 2002, as reflected in an excerpt from the Agency's annual audit (Attachment 2), the Redevelopment Agency has incurred or created $149 million in debt. 1. Debt with Offsetting Income Stream for Repayment- $0 The Emerald Cove project is no longer owned by the Redevelopment Agency as it has _ been conveyed to the City. The debt associated with the project has been transferred to the Emerald Cove fund. 2. Debt Being Repaid by Agency Revenues -$30 million There has been no change given the refinancing of a prior bond issue in late 2002. 3. Development Site Specific Debt-$16.8 million This debt relates to the Developer Advance for the Hyatt project and it increased as the project was completed. This debt will be repaid from project-generated revenues. 4. Debt Created to Reimburse City - $86.2 million The net debt increased due to interest accrual on the prior balances after repayments were recognized. 5. Cash Advanced from City's General Fund - $16 million This estimated balance has not changed from the prior amount reflected due to interest accrual which should be considered an indirect advance, and the need to yet make additional adjustments to reflect prior Business Development expenses, totaling $2,886,474 that were paid on behalf of the General Fund by the Redevelopment Agency. An updated Summary of the Applying Redevelopment Agency Business Development Expenditures and Repayments to the General Fund Direct Advances has been provided (Attachment 3). This shows that on a cash-to-cash basis all Direct Advances have been repaid, with $10,586,000 being available to be credited to indirect _ advances and accrued interest. However, we do need to develop a more detailed S-,4&a'y SQss•oh s/a/o3 /1'I�e�. G:\David\MEMOS\UpdatedRADebt.doc reconciliation which allocates interest accrual between Direct and Indirect Advances, with all repayments being applied first to Direct Advances. In FY 2002-03, there have been a number of additional debt repayments/credits to General Fund debt by the Redevelopment Agency. These are not reflected in the above balances and are summarized below: -RepaymentlCredit Amount Applied Debt Repayment $ 1,800,000 GF—Indirect Advances/Interest Business-Development=Expense_Credit 464 2a10'y GF'—Indirect,Advances/lnte.rest Gas Tax Fund Repayment 1,300,000 Gas Tax Fund Advance :Mid-Year Debt Repay.rnent= 4,AOO Q00- G.F--Indirect Advances/Inferesf Waterfront Site—Wetlands Credit 3,556,003 GF—Deferred Payment on Land ;Emerald;Cove Fees10redit- 243,Q00; PAS& DF -sDeferred;iDeyelopmenIf Fees- TOTAL: $ 11,363,213 G:\David\MEMOS\UpdatedRADebt.doc 01 � . ! may . ®� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH InterOffice Communication r TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: October 16, 2000 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Debt Information A number of candidates for City Council have raised the issue of Redevelopment Agency debt in recent candidate forums. This is a complex and confusing issue to many because of the way the State requires Redevelopment Agency's to incur debt as the only means to receive the property tax increment generated in the redevelopment project area. In the early years of the Redevelopment Agency, the City worked to create debt to ensure that the Agency would be able to receive its annual property tax increment. The amount of debt created was also designed to ensure that the City would benefit in the future by enabling the Redevelopment Agency to continue to collect tax increment after the expiration of the redevelopment project area for the purpose of making payments to the City to retire this debt. However, this early strategy has become a source of criticism since it is misunderstood. In order to assist in clarifying what has happened regarding debt and the current status, Redevelopment Agency and Administrative Services staff have prepared the attached fact sheet. In summary, the Redevelopment Agency has repaid all cash ever advanced from the City's General Fund and the General Fund benefits substantially from direct revenues generated by Redevelopment Agency assisted projects. In the future, the City will also benefit by ongoing payments from the Redevelopment Agency to the City. Please feel free to contact Administrative Services Director John Reekstin or me if we can provide further information or answer any questions you might have. xc: John Reekstin, Administrative Services Director Attachments: Redevelopment Agency Debt Fact Sheet 10/16/00 Redevelopment Agency Debt Yes, the City's Redevelopment Agency, like the City itself, does have debt. Like your family, it makes sense for public agencies to finance certain types of purchases and activities over time with debt. Also, it is common to use debt as a way to make investments that will generate an income stream. Having debt is not generally considered a problem as long as it's well managed and there is an income stream to repay it in the future. The Redevelopment Agency has incurred or created nearly $140 million in debt as of September 1999. This debt falls into the following main categories: 1. Debt with Offsetting Dedicated Income Stream for Repayment--$6 Million At times the Agency serves as a financing conduit for a project, such as the Emerald Cove Senior Apartments. Any debt incurred is offset by a corresponding income stream that will fully repay the debt, such as the rents paid by Emerald Cove residents. 2. Debt Being Repaid by Agency Revenues--$30 Million Two series of tax allocation bonds are outstanding. These are being repaid on an annual basis from the Redevelopment Agency's property tax increment revenues (which will be $5.6 million or more-in 2000/01), and the bonds will be fully repaid by 2024. 3. Development Site Specific Debt--$10 Million The Agency has agreed to repay the developer of the Grand Coast Resort project an agreed to amount from a share of future site-specific project generated revenues. These repayments will occur over 20 years, and only if the revenues are actually generated. The third year of after project completion will see annual Redevelopment Agency revenues of$2,350,000, plus additional City annual revenues of$960,000. 4. Debt Created to Reimburse City--$74 Million This debt is comprised of three main types. Funds that were expended on City capital improvement projects that were made as part of the normal course of business ($4.7 Million). They were booked as a debt of the Redevelopment Agency since they were made in a Redevelopment Project Area. City property transferred to the Redevelopment Agency at a premium value. This transfer value was booked as Redevelopment Agency debt ($59 Million). A City w overhead allocation for use of existing City facilities, equipment, material, and staff was booked annually as an indirect advance from the City's General Fund. ($10 Million). All were done in order to allow the City to benefit to the greatest extent possible through the use of the Redevelopment Agency funds as a reimbursement source in the future. 10/16/00 5. Cash Advanced from City's General Fund --$16 Million In the early years of the Redevelopment Agency before its own income stream developed, the City did advance cash to the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has made more than $12.7 million in direct payments on this amount over the last decade with an additional $700,000 to be paid in 2000/01. The Redevelopment Agency also funds the City's Business Development Division at a 2000/01 cost of$386,000; this is in addition to the more than $2 Million expended on Business Development activities since the program inception in 1992/93. The Business Development expense would otherwise be a City General Fund expense. At the end of FY 1998/99, the Redevelopment Agency had completely repaid any actual cash advanced. In addition to the direct repayment from the Redevelopment Agency, the City's General Fund benefits substantially from increases in other revenues as a result of the Redevelopment Agency's activities. For example, one project that would not exist without the Agency's involvement, the Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort, provided $629,000 in sales tax and hotel taxes to the City's General Fund in 1999/00. Main Street and the Pier area, where the Agency has made substantial investments, have also generated increased sales tax. revenues. Plus, the Agency's activities also allowed for the development of Pier Plaza and the Duke's/Chimayo's Restaurants, which.generate substantial lease income to the City. Simply looking at the debt side of the Redevelopment Agency's balance sheet does not provide a complete picture. You have to look at the income and asset side as well in order to fairly evaluate redevelopment activities in Huntington Beach. w ...;({;ii+((�`j`l i!!;ih`.Ni�:`.`2('')Ll?i-Ilf F1L+.C11 C'✓Gi:�)L.ijUC f APPLYING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES AND REPAYMENTS TO GENERAL FUND DIRECT ADVANCES (in thousands) r a n e m- - FY 91/92 12,163 (1,276) FY 92/93 121181 (1,217) FY 93194 11,738 (2,854) FY 94/95 11,736; (1,300) FY 95/96 14,346 (3,675) FY 96/97 t 14,346 (1,100) FY 97/98 -14,346 (800) FY 98/99 14,346 (500) - CUMULATIVE TOTAL-DIRECT ADVANCES ' 14,346 CUMULATIVE TOTAL-REPAYMENTS (12,722) REMAINING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- DIRECT ADVANCE GENERAL FUND DEBT 1,.624 s Q - FY 91/92(Program in Development)':. . FY 92/93 243,627 FY 93/94' 270;444_ FY 94/95 .2.75,778 FY 95/96 .2981014 FY 96197 t 299,963 FY 97/98 303,093 FY 98199 353,778 TOTAL RDA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES. 2,044,697 REMAINING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- DIRECT ADVANCE GENERAL FUND DEBT 1,624 TOTAL RDA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES A 2,045 NET DIFFERENCE CITY DIRECT ADVANCES TO RDA- LESS RDA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES (421) 1 : 1 RDA General Fund Debt.xls Page 1 , � � AT � . g Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 5. CAPITAL ASSETS: The changes in capital assets (land) during the year were (in'thousands): Balance, October 1, 2001 $ 17,177 - Additions/Retirements - Balance, September 30, 2002 $ 17,177 6. LONG-TERM DEBT: The changes in Agency long-term debt during the year were (in thousands): Balance Balance Amount Due October 1, September 30, within One DEBT TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: 2001 Additions Retirements 2002 Year Advances from General Fund $ 27,112 $ 1,230 $ (1,700) $ 26,642 $ - Advances from Sewer Fund 194 8 - 202 - Advances from Drainage Fund 467 20 - 487 - vances from Water Fund 2,894 125 - 3,019 - _ Avances from Gas Tax Fund 1,227 53 - 1,280 - Advances from Capital Improvement Fund 446 19 - 465 - Deferred Development Fees: - Park Acquisition and Development Fund 510 23 - 533 - Sewer Fund 120 5 - 125 - Drainage Fund 128 6 134 - Deferred Payment on Land Purchases from City: - General Fund 62,137. 2,841 - 64,978 - Park Acquisition and Development Fund 3,846 166 - 4,012 - Advances from Public Financing Authority 18,468 - (18,468) - - Less Amount Considered Possibly to not be Repaid (62,137) (2,820) - (64,957) Total Debt-City of Huntington Beach 65,412 1,676 (20,168) 36,920 - OTHER DEBT Notes Payable 346 - (53) 293 293 Mayer Disposition and Development Agreement 4,756 6,524 - 11,280 - 1999 Refunding Tax Allocation Bonds 9,770 - (300) 9,470 310 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds - 20,900 - 20,900 685 Section 108 Loan 5,685 - (165) 5,520 177 oloyee Compensated Absences - 97 - 97 - al Other Debt 20,557 27,521 (518) 47,560 1,465 Total Agency Debt $ 75,969 $ 29,197 $ (20,686) $ 84,480 $ 1,465 l 22 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): a. Advances from General Fund: Years debt incurred 1985 to 1996 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $18,558,000 Accrued interest _ 8,084,000 Purpose of debt Operating, administrative and capital expenditures Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms j None b. Advances from City's Sewer Fund: Years debt incurred 1989 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $131,000 Accrued interest $72,000 Purpose of debt Sewer Construction Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None c. Advances from City's Drainage Fund: Years debt incurred 1987 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $250,000 Accrued interest $237,000 Purpose of debt Drainage Construction Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None 23 i 1 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): d. Advances from City's Water Fund: Years debt incurred 1986 and 1987 Interest rate 4.57% _ Principal amount $1,138,000 Accrued interest $1,881,000 Purpose of debt Water Construction Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms I None e. Advances from City's Gas Tax Fund: Years debt incurred 1988 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $500,000 Accrued interest $779,000 _ Purpose of debt Street Improvements Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None f. Advances from City's Capital Improvement Fund: Years debt incurred 1989 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $200,000 Accrued interest $266,000 Purpose of debt Capital Expenditures Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None 24 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): g. Deferred Development Fees: Years debt incurred 1984 Interest rate 4.57% Principal amount $339,000 Accrued interest $454,000 Purpose of debt Developer Incentive Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None These fees are owed to the following City funds: Park Acquisition and Development Fund $ 533,000 Sewer Fund 126,000 Drainage Fund 134,000 Total $ 793,000 h. Deferred Payment on Land Purchases from City's General Fund: Years debt incurred 1983 to 1992 Interest rate 4.57% (current fiscal ear Principal amount $32,833,000 Accrued interest $32,143,000 Purpose of debt Parcel consolidation and development Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None This total is considered not likely to be repaid and is deducted from the total Agency debt on the accompanying financial statements. 25 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): i. Deferred Payment on Land Purchases from City's Park Acquisition and Development Fund: Years debt incurred 1984 Interest rate 4.57%Principal amount $1,741,000 Accrued interest $2,271,000 Purpose of debt Emerald Cove Land Security for debt Operative Agreement with City Repayment terms None J. Advances from Public Financing Authority: During the year the advances from the Public Financing Authority totaling $18,468,000 were repaid by the issuance of the 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (see note 6n). k. Notes Payable: Year(s) debt incurred 1988 (refinanced in 1992 Interest rate Variable (First Interstate Bank Prime plus 1.75% Original principal amount $771,000 Remaining principal amount $293,000 Purpose of debt Purchase property Security for debt Mortgage Contract Repayment terms Monthly mortgage contract Debt service requirements for notes payable to maturity are as follows (in thousands): Year Ending September 30, Principal Interest Total 2003 $293 $42 $335 . 26 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): I. Mayer Disposition and Development Agreement: In fiscal year 1996-97, the Agency entered into a disposition and development agreement with Robert Mayer Corporation (Corporation) concerning additional development adjacent to the- Waterfront Hotel. Under the agreement, the Corporation would advance payments for the project costs with the Agency reimbursing up to $16,750,000 of the costs. The beginning balance of this obligation was $4,756,000. During the year$6,524,000 was advanced. As of September 30, 2002, the Agency obligation under the agreement amounted to $11,280,000. These amounts will be repaid by project-generated revenues as available over the time needed to fully amortize the advance. m. 1999 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds: Years debt incurred 1999 Interest rate 3.00% to 5.05% Original principal amount $10,835,000 Remaining principal amount $9,470,000 Purpose of debt Prepay Agency's 1992 Loans to Public Financing Authority Security for debt Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment, excluding Low- Income Housing Amounts Repayment terms Principal, August 1 , Interest, February 1 Sr and August 15c 27 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): m. 1999 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds: Debt service requirements to maturity are as follows (in thousands): Year Ending September 30 Principal Interest Total 2003 $ 310 $ 303 $ 613 2004 320 278 598 2005 335 245 580 2006 350 214 564 2007 365 171 536 2008-2012 2,060 769 2,829 2013-2017 2,575 631 3;206 2018-2023 2,795 512 3,307 2024 360 53 413 Total $ 9,470 $ 3,176 $ 12,646 n. 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds: Year of Issuance 2002 Type of Debt Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Original Principal Amount $20,900,000 Security Tax Increment Interest Rates 2.00% to 5.00% Interest Payment Dates February 15 and August 1S Principal Payment Dates August I" j Purpose of Debt Prepay Agency's 1992 Loans to Public Financing Authority and fully defease 1992 Public Financing Authority bonds l� 28 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): n. 2002 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds: Debt service requirements to maturity are (in thousands): Year Ending September 30, Principal Interest Total 2003 $ 685 $ 928 $ 1,613 2004 750 860 1,610 2005 765 841 1,606 2006 790 822 1,612 2007 815 798 1,613 2008-2012 4,565 3,542 8,107 2013-2017 5,650 2,540 8,190 2018-2022 5,180 1,134 6,314 2023-2024 1,700 124 1,824 Total $ 20,900 $ 11,589 $ 32,489 o. Section 108 Loan Year of Issuance 2000 Type of Debt Loan from Federal Government Original Principal Amount $6,000,000 Remaining Principal Amount $5,520,000 Security Loan Agreement with Federal _ Government Interest Rates 7.7% Interest Payment Dates February 1S and Au ust 1s Principal Payment Dates August 1" Purpose of Debt Capital Improvements - l ' 29 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Notes to Basic Financial Statements Year Ended September 30, 2002 6. LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED): o. Section 108 Loan Debt service requirements to maturity are (in thousands): Year Ending September 30 Principal Interest Total 2003 $ 180 $ 420 $ 600 2004 195 407 602 2005 210 394 604 2006 220 378 598 2007 235 363 598 2008-2012 1,455 1,530 2,950 2013-2017 2,015 896 2,911 2018-2019 1,010 122 1,132 Total $ 5,520 $ 4,510 $ 9,995 p. Employee Compensated Balances: There is no fixed repayment to pay the compensated absences liability at year-end. 7. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS: Below is a summary of the interFund transactions at year-end (in thousands): Advances Advances from to Other Other Funds Funds Low-Income Housing Fund 2,094 - Debt Service Fund - 2,094 Total $ 2,094 $ 2,094 30 i � � J. � �, } �� �.�r-� f:� � �. [ &- is tr, • REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPAYMENTS TO GENERAL FUND DIRECT ADVANCES (in thousands) AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES • DIRECT ADVANCES CUMULATIVE TOTAL OF, FISCAL;YEAR BY FY DIRECT ADVANCES REPAYMENT: FY 91/92 12,163 12,163 1,276 FY 92/93 18 12,181 1,217 FY 93/94 443 11,738 2,854 FY 94/95 2 11,736 1,300 FY 95/96 2,610 14,346 3,675 FY 96/97 0 14,346 1,100 FY 97/98 0 14,346 800 FY 98/99 0 14,346 500 FY 99/00 0 14,346 710 FY 00/01 0 14,346 700 FY 01/02 0 14,346 1,700 FY 02/03 0 14,346 6,212 CUMULATIVE TOTAL-DIRECT ADVANCES 14,346 CUMULATIVE TOTAL-REPAYMENTS 22,044 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY- DIRECT ADVANCE GENERAL FUND DEBT 7,698 BUSINESS FISCAL YEAR = DEVELOPMENT -- - FY 91/92 FY 92/93 243,627 FY 93/94 270,444 FY 94/95 275,778 FY 95/96 298,014 FY 96/97 299,963 FY 97/98 303,093 _ FY 98/99 353,778 FY 99/00 386,346 FY 00/01 456,831 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES DEBT CREDIT DUE 2,887,874 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECT ADVANCE GENERAL FUND DEBT 7,698 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES DEBT CREDIT DUE 2,888 NET DIFFERENCE- CITY DIRECT ADVANCES TO RDA,LESS RDA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEBT CREDIT DUE 10,586 g:\luann\RDA\cashflows\GeneralFundDebt Last Accessed 8/18/2003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interoffice Communication Economic Development Department TO: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: August 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Financial Policy Issues/Questions The issue of Redevelopment Agency debt has been a topic of concern for many years. While Redevelopment Agency debt and financial history have been carefully documented since the 1995/96 fiscal year, some questions remained unanswered about prior years. The Administrative Services Department recently responded to a series of questions designed to address many of these historical gaps in information. These very complete responses, together with prior research, represent the best information available. Further research is not likely to result in additional information, or at least not at a level that would warrant additional investment of staff time or energy. As such, this information should be presented to the City Council to provide a comprehensive response to these lingering questions. It is suggested that the information be the topic of a future City Council Study Session, with the policy issues addressed through a Council action at a subsequent meeting. The goal being to "put to rest" past issues and establish a new basis for going forward. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the few remaining pieces of information needed and the policy issues to be addressed. Ocean View Estates 1. $39,210 in Redevelopment coach rental income went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 2. $197,095 in sales proceeds from Redevelopment-Agency owned coaches went to the OVE Fund. Should there be a transfer from the OVE Fund or a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? � 6 3. $92,854.07 in much earlier sales proceeds from Redevelopment Agency-owned coaches went to the General Fund. Should there be a credit from the General Fund for this amount against Redevelopment Agency debt? 4. OVE generated $1,695,789 in space rental through FY 01-02. This revenue was deposited into the General Fund. The operating costs for this same period have not yet been identified. Once it has been identified, and we can calculate the Net Operating Income, should this prior years' Net Operating Income be transferred from the General Fund as rent to the PA and DF? 5. Verify the net OVE Enterprise income is currently going to the PA and DF as rent. Emerald Cove The recent City Council actions on Emerald Cove addressed many of the issues related to this project. The ultimate goal now is the eventual sale of the property and the repayment of debt. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency Debt to the PA and DF proposed to be paid upon sale be reclassified as a.debt of the Emerald Cove Fund since the Agency no longer owns the property and it has been conveyed it to the City? Business Development Expense The Redevelopment Agency has paid the operating expenses for the Business Development Division since its inception. Starting in Fiscal Year 01/02, the Business Development operating expense has been treated as an advance from the Redevelopment Agency and credited against Agency debt owed to the General Fund. 1. $2,886,474 has been advanced from FY 91-92 to FY 00-01. The City Council should authorize a credit against Redevelopment Agency debt for this updated number. 2. Should there also be an interest credit calculated for each year based upon the interest rate used for the Redevelopment debt in that year? Overhead Charges The Redevelopment Agency currently pays approximately $100,000 each year for accounting services. In 1989, there was $2,255,560 booked as Agency debt for a City overhead charge. In 1990, another $2,083,744 was added as debt for overhead in that year for a total of $4,339,304. Interest has accrued on this amount since the debt was booked. _ 1.� 1. Should these extremely high overhead charges, together with the annual accounting charge, be reclassified as overhead appropriate to the period of 1989-2003? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these re-spread charges? 3. Verify that there was no other overhead charges directly paid in subsequent years. Shank House The Redevelopment Agency-owned Shank House has been used exclusively as a police substation since it was acquired and rehabilitated. An April 2002 appraisal established that the fair market rent of the building would be $6,485/month or $77,820/year. 1. Should an annual rent payment be calculated for each year of occupancy and credited against Redevelopment Agency debt to the General Fund? 2. Should there be an adjustment to interest accrual to reflect these annual rent credits? Capital Project Fund Debt The information provided by Administrative Services documents that this debt was due to the cost of City capital improvement projects in redevelopment areas that were made as - part of the normal course of business being booked as Redevelopment Debt. 1. Should this debt be maintained on the books for possible repayment in the future or should it and accrued interest be reclassified as an expenditure of the originating fund? Interest Rate Redevelopment Agency debt currently accrues interest at an annual rate equal to the average annual return for the year on the City's pooled investments. This represents the opportunity costs. In prior years, a much higher rate of interest was charged. 1. Should the total amount of accrued interest be recalculated using an annual rate equal to the average annual return for each year on the City's pooled investments? Land Acquisition /Debt A large portion of the Redevelopment Agency's debt owed to the City's General Fund is due to the Agency's acquisition of the Waterfront site from the City. The City, as the - 3 parent entity of the Redevelopment Agency, will inherit the Redevelopment Agency's assets at the end of its life. These assets will include all real property owned by the Redevelopment Agency, and include properties like the Hilton site with its ground rent, and the Hyatt site with its ground rent and participation rent. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency convey certain real property like the Downtown paseos to the City at current value or at cost and receive a credit against General Fund debt? 2. Should the Hilton parcel and the Hyatt parcel be conveyed to the City at their current values or acquisition cost, now rather than at the end of the Agency's life, and receive a credit against General Fund debt? Long-Term Debt Issues It is important that the Redevelopment Agency's debt be managed in a manner to ensure that all tax increment revenues can be collected over the life of the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan and State Law govern the duration that the Redevelopment Agency can collect tax increment for the repayment of debt. In particular, there is a threshold after which the Redevelopment Agency can only collect tax increment for pre- AB 1290 debt. AB 1290 was the Redevelopment Reform Act adopted in 1994. The Administrative Services Department advises us that all post AB 1290 debt has now been repaid. As such, each dollar of debt repayment made for pre-AB 1290 debt will mean we will forgo an equal amount after the AB 1290 time limit is reached in approximately 2031. To the extent that there is Pre-AB 1290 debt remaining unpaid after 2031, tax increment revenue can continue to be collected until this debt is fully repaid as long as it is within the $850 million cumulative cap on tax increment. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency has a few non-property tax increment revenue sources, including ground rent, transient occupancy taxes and participation payments. To the extent these revenues are used to repay pre-AB 1290 debt, additional future property tax increment will be forgone. Long-term cash flow prepared which will assist us in analyzing these issues and the draft is currently being updated to reflect recent debt repayments. 1. Should the Redevelopment Agency increase its capital project and/or operating expenditures and reduce its Pre AB 1290 debt repayment to ensure no tax increment revenues are forgone? 2. Should non-tax increment revenues be set aside for capital or other operating expenses? 3. Should the Agency utilize only its tax increment revenues as the repayment source for obligations like repayment of Hyatt Developer Advance, including non-Hyatt generated tax increment, in lieu of non-tax increment revenues? 4. Should the Redevelopment Agency / City division of transient occupancy tax be rescinded with the TOT revenue reverting to the City in order to obligate additional tax increment? (Need to ensure we meet contractual obligations to developers.) As a point of reference, in FY 2001-02, the City's "contribution" or 15% share of property tax increment would have been $933,450. This compares to the $1,700,000 in debt repayment made to the General Fund in the same year. In addition, Redevelopment Agency facilitated projects directly add revenues to the City's General Fund each year. For example, the City share of Transient Occupancy Tax for the current fiscal year through June for the Hilton and from its opening in January through June for the Hyatt has totaled $592,000. DCB Summary - Redevelopment Cash Flow - for Long Term Debt Projections (Non-Housing) 2001102 1 2001102 2002/03 1 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005106 2006107 Pro'ected Actual pEST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 8;692,871 " 6;974;000 6;561,963''_.;$Z;609;629 1 SB= ,575t� _$9;097,225 ., _$8 759;164 Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410.738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673.840 8.527,317 8,913,863 9,092,140 Huntington Center 1,321.941 1.282.310 1.473,000 2.227,460 2,257.509 2,802,659 2,858.713 Oakview 626,368 573.313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592,154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415.244 383,121 441,000 449,820 458,816 467,993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417,180 425.524 434,034 442,715 Tax Increment(100%) 6.186.510 6,223.067 7,973,000 11.337.460 12,249,709 13,210,703 13.474.917 Tax Increment Less 20%Housing Set Aside 4,944,408 4,978,454 6,378,400 9,069,968 9,799,767 10,568,563 10,779,934 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 333,790 336,000 310,595 393,251 402,302 409,644 415.917 Main Pier 1,819,651 2,694.720 2,381,806 3,340.294 3,857,626 3,375,383 Huntington Center 0 0 0 942,000 593,000 573.621 Oakview 0 0 110,000 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 333,790 2,155,651 3,005,315 2,885,057 4,684,596 4,860,270 4,364,921 TOTAL Revenue 6,514,300 7,134,105 110.978,315 14,222,517 16,934,306 18,070,974 17,839,839 EXPENSES Debt Service Fund _ 7.136,900 6,204.223 9.255.747 12.929,742 15,310,723 15,558,771 15.674.096 Projects Fund 1,587,356 1,341,919 674.902 700.828 727,934 2.850,273 785.903 Bond Defeasance TOTAL EXPENSES $8,724,256 S7,546.142 $9.930,649 S13,630,570 S16,038.656 S78,409,045 S16,459,999 NET Income ($2,209,956) ($412,037) $1,047,666 $591.946 $895,649 ($338,071) $1.379.840 _ EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE 56 482s15: 56 561`;983 ;T609,629;:_ '$8 201;575,, _ '5.9,097;225? 58 758;154 t ii10;138;894;' note:restricted cash= 4,759,000 CF-Aug03 Summary 8/18/2003 3:28 PM Redevelopment Debt Service Fund 2001/02 1 2001102 2002103 1 2003/04 2004105 1 2005106 1 2006/07 Pro'ected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 3;767;665t $2241;000: 2;954821: $7,724;863 (b639;773) ($3b87;454) ($5;981,953) Revenue Total Tax Increment Main Pier 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092.140 Huntington Center 1,321.941 1,282,310 1,473.000 1,502,460 1.532.509 2,302,659 2.858,713 Ezralow Increment 0 725,000 500,000 Oakview 626,368 573,313 558,000 569,160 580,543 592,154 603,997 Talbert Beach 415,244 383,121 441,000 449,820 458,816 467,993 477,353 Yorktown Lake 406,219 382,602 409,000 417.180 425.524 434,034 442.715 Tax Increment(100%) 6,180,510 6,223,067 7,973,000 10,612,460 12,249,709 13.210,703 13,474,917 Other Revenue Interest Earnings 143,546 191,490 52,789 52,646 13,332 (46.431) (107,656) Main Pier 0 0 0 0 0 0 Huntington Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oakview 0 0 0 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub Total 143,546 191,490 52,789 62,646 13,332 (46,431) (107,656) TOTAL Revenue 6,324,056 6,414,657 8,025,789 10,665,106 12,263,041 13,164,272 13,367,262 EXPENSES Debt and Mandated Payments: Special G/F Payment 4,000,000 Transfer to Low Income Housing 1,236,102 1,245,000 1,594,600 2,122,492 2,449,942 2,642,141 2,694,91 Debt Service-HBPFA 2,340,000 2,360,000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2,340,000 2,340,00, Transfer to General Fund 1,300,000 1,345,000 1,800.000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Business Development 378,044 355.322 412,728 287,322 295,942 304,820 313,965 Assessor's Case Adjustment 697,684 697,684 239,037 243,818 248,694 Debt Service-Huntington National Bank 332,000 99,000 255,757 0 0 0 1 Repayment of Waterfront Advance 566,000 1,270,000 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 Repayment of Hunt Ctr Advance 1,581,000 1,581,000 1,581,000 Repayment of CIM Advance 673.000 673,000 673.000 CIM Additional Parking 100.000 100,000 100.000 Sec.108 Loan Payment 600,070 600,070 600.071 602,244 603,302 598,308 598,308 Pass Thru Agreements 253,000 199,831 200,000 210,000 220,500 231,525 243,101 Repayment of Gas Tax Fund 1,279,000 ERAF 207,591 400,000 408,000 416,160 424,483 TOTAL Non Housing EXPENSES $7,136,900 S6.204.223 S9.255.747 S12.929.742 S15.310.723 S16.658.771 $16.674.096 NET Income ($812,844) $210,334 ($1,229,958) ($2,264,636) ($3,047,681) ($2,394,499) ($2,306,834) EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE 2 954;821° 2;451,334: 1',724;66.3: ( 539 7,73); ( 3 587;454); `.($8;981;953) ($8;288;787) 1-$673,000 per year for 25 years CF-Aug03 Debt Redevelopment Projects Fund 2001102 1 2001/02 2002103 1 2003104 1 2004105 1 2005106 Projected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE $41021 000 ; 8;917 000 ," $13;999,1,48 $16;276;7.7,2 $18;298`,354, =$22.241;685' Revenue Interest Earnings 190.244 201,000 257,807 340,604 388,970 456,075 Main Pier 2,406,373 3,601,721 2,694,720 2,381,806 3,340.294 3,857,626 Huntington Center 0 1,282,310 0 0 942,000 593,000 Oakview 0 573,313 0 0 0 0 Talbert Beach 0 383,121 0 0 0 0 Yorktown Lake 0 382,602 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Revenue 2.596.617 6,424,067 2,952,526 2,722,410 4,671,264 4,906,702 EXPENSES Salaries and Benefits 352,356 338,104 291,902 303,578 315,721 328,350 Operating Expenses 1,092,000 349,673 285,000 299,250 314,213 329,923 Sub Total 1,444,356 687,777 676,902 602,828 629,934 668,273 Capital Projects 5th Street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abdelmuti Contract 135,000 71,142 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Edinger Corridor 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERAF Repayment 0 0 0 0 731.000 Housing Fund Repayment 0 0 0 0 1.363,000 SE Redevelopment Area 0 Trustee Fees 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Pr Year Encumbrances 575,000 Sub-Total 143,000 654,142 98,000 98,000 98,000 2,192,000 Total Projects Fund Expenses $1,587,366 $1,341,919 $674,902. $700.828 $727,934 $2,850,273 NET Income $1,009,261 $5.082,148 $2,277,624 $2.021,582 $3,943,331 $2,056,429 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE a5 030.`261 $13 999 148;.y: _$16 276 772; $18 298;354 $22'241;6t35 S24,298;113-° CF-Aug03 Projects Redevelopment Housing Fund 2001102 1 2001102 2002103 12003104 12004105 12005106 12006107 Projected Actual EST.BEGINNING CASH BALANCE $5;499 B51 $4`184`000 $4;611,576 1 .$3;326i265-1 $4;7B6,134 I $7 265"955 $12 09T42B avenue Total Tax Increment Tax Increment(20%) 1.236,102 1,244,600 1.594,600 2,122,492 2.449,942 2.642.141 2,694,983 SE Area Tax Increment(20%) 800,000 816,000 832,320 848,966 Interest 329.991 150.327 101,510 74,841 107,688 163.484 272,192 ERAF Repayment from 80% 0 0 0 0 0 731000 0 Payment from Main-Pier 0 0 0 0 0 1363000 0 TOTAL INCOME $1,566,093 $1,394,927 $1,6961110 $2,997,333 $3,373,630 $5,731,945 $3,816,142 Expenses Non-Discretlonary Property Tax Collection Charge 10,563 10,563 10,563 10563 10563 10563 10563 Rental Housing Acquisition 750,000 0 750,000 750.000 750.000 750.000 750,000 Berge Development 650,000 0 650.000 0 0 0 Bowen Court 900,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 The Fountains 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 Repayment to Agency 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 Prior Year Encumbrances 85,000 83,648 Sub-Total 4.395,563 994,211 2,760,563 1,410,563 760,563 760,563 1,260,563 DISCRETIONARY Salaries&Benefits 64,703 60,665 67,938 71,335 74,902 78,647 82,579 Operating Expenses 50,400 12,475 52,920 55,566 58.344 61,262 64,325 Sub-Total 115,103 73,140 120,858 126,901 133,246 139,909 146,904 TOTAL EXPENSES $4,510,666 $1,067,351 $2,881,421 $1,537,464 $893,809 $900,472 $1,407,467 NET INCOME ($2,944,573) $327,576 ($1,185,311) $1,459,869 $2,479,821 $4,831,473 $2,408,675 EST.ENDING Cash BALANCE $2;555;278= $4,51,1i576... $3 326265 S4'786'134`:. $7-265'955R`;$12°09t,428 :,$K506103 CF-Aug03 Housing MAIN-PIER Project Area-Revenue Projections 2001/02 1 2001/02 2002/03 2003104 2004105 2005/2006 2006/2007 Projected Actual INCOME Tax Increment(100%) 3,410,738 3,601,721 4,692,000 5,193.840 7,827.317 8.697,863 9,092.140 New Tax Increment Hyatt 120,000 1,470,000 0 0 0 Waterfront Residential 0 280,000 880,000 350,000 216,000 CIM Project 0 0 0 130,000 350,000 0 0 Tax Increment SubTotal 3,410,738 3,601,721 5,092,000 7,673,840 8,527,317 8,913,863 9,092.140 Interest 0 0 0 T.O.T.(Waterfront) 795.000 705,000 705,000 705,000 705,000 705,000 705,000 T.O.T.(Hyatt) 0 0 447,600 , 1,059,000 1,219,800 1,219,800 1,219,800 Ground Lease(Hyatt) 0 0 23,775 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Abdelmuti Loan 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340,505 340.505 340,505 Hilton Lease/RLM Ground Lease 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189 Waterfront Interim Rent 107,126 106,936 110,340 113,651 117,060 120,572 124,189 T.O.T.(CIM) 0 475.869 480,628 485,434 CIM Parking Revenue 0 185,000 190,550 196,267 CIM-Additional Parking Revenue 30,000 30,000 30,000 Lease Payments(438 Main) 19,000 19,800 14025 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Housing Sites Reimbursements 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 Town Square Loan Repayment 477,615 480.474 0 0 0 0 0 Mola Settlement 60,000 60,000 55,621 Property Sale-438 Main 887,513 Other Income SubTotal 2,406,373 1,819,651 2,694,720 2,381,806 3,340,294 3,857,626 3,375,383 TOTAL INCOME $5;81,Z.:1;11;__ $b421372 .$7.,786720 :' 510055646 ...511867.:611 `. _'$:12:771 489 512;467:524 CF-Aug03 M-P 3 , • nlNllu�llt ". W S P L V A � L K G � O U I I NR O S E N O 71n.,- I H I'11. F 4 T IT FC11 Nr,I IC; F.T SI III ICY, 217 NORTH MAIN STREET TEL: 714 541-4585 Fco.cr tc DFVFLo P+IFxr SUITE 300 FAX: 714 836-1748 xrn FS'rlrol:_.T PLANNING nroSING SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA EMAIL: INFO©W EBRSG.COM IIFAL F}TAT' \CDIIISI"rlll> g2701-4822 W W W.WEBRSG.COM FINANC'st; August 19, 2003 Via Hand Deliverer Mr. David Biggs, Director of Economic Development Ms. Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LONG-TERM DEBT PAYOFF ANALYSIS HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Dear Mr. Biggs and Ms. Brunson: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG") has enclosed the long-term debt payoff analysis for the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The purpose of this analysis was two-fold: 1) to present a conservative forecast as to whether the Agency will have sufficient tax increment revenue to meet its current obligations, and 2)to ascertain whether the Agency should expect to collect tax increment revenue beyond the Redevelopment Plan's November 2034 time limit to receive tax increment revenue to pay off debts incurred prior to January 1, 1994, pursuant to Section 33333.6(g) of the Health and Safety Code. Two scenarios of this analysis have been prepared, showing the difference between annual City advance repayments starting at $2 million, and repayments starting at $5 million. Assuming City advance payments of $2 million annually, the Agency would have more than enough revenue to meet its debt obligations. Based on the assumptions described in this letter, the Agency could generate $404.1 million of nonhousing tax increment revenue, plus another $105.4 million in other revenue, between 2002-03 and 2033-34 (when the final portion of the merged Project Area would reach the 50-year time limit to collect tax increment revenue). Payments on Agency debts total $375.1 million, and consist of taxing agency payments, bond debt service, ERAF payments, owner participation and developer reimbursements, HUD loan repayments, administration, and repayment of City advances. This leaves a total of $134.4 million net nonhousing revenue. Depending upon whether the Agency wants to continue to collect tax increment revenue after fiscal year 2033-34 to pay the remaining $84.9 million of City advances, the remaining $134.4 million of net nonhousing revenue could be used by the Agency to either: 1) fully payoff the remaining balance of the City advances plus fund approximately $49.5 million of future project costs, or 2) fund up to $134.4 million of new projects and use tax increment revenue after 2033- 34 solely to fund the remaining City advances. FAHUNTBCH\DebtAnalysis\longtermdebtanalysis.doc I ii HCP,L&WCF Project#06-00963gp. 2v Parcel Acres. APN Former OwAbr s. ' Est-Purcha�Prj Current Use Date Purchase Grant Deed Ci Tag xzh 1 2.47 111-071-05 Distefano _ � r 296 400 HCP 4/22/1986 �Fr i 2 6.89 111-071-32• Oceanview.Mushroom' Y' l '; r826,800 HCP 3 4.78 111-071-19 Oceanview Mushroom' ram. = '. 573;600. HCP 4/22/19860 0 Subtotal: 14.14 `' ,ti x NY 1-6 96 890 HCP 4 4.98 111 101-1-44& 69 parcels(encyclopedia lots=vanous owners; 597L6000VE s 2,041,254 111 102-1 25 56 parcels with Oceanview Mushroom) 5 1.25 111-07128, Vicmora Corp. z 150;000 OVE Dec-85' 312,828 4653 36168 6 1.03 1 i 1-071;27 Hudson ' T <�'�a 123 6000VE 10/30/1986 230,784 1753 36188 .s *415;8000VEs s 7 1.89 .1.11-07125. Mabel.Bradleys �,� z f Jun-86 710,685 4714 36182 - ,.: 89;800 OYE :3/10/1980 .= 200,549 36277 8 0.16 111-OZ1-26-_ Richard Panseau ti. s. a >.. Subtotal: 9.31 1`3768QO OVE Total: 23.45 x;3;UT-000 2.09 111-071-19,-29,-By Court Order-Defendants DiStefano, 11/21/1989 3,750,000 36250 32(a portion) Mushroom Property Supplemental Research: 0.29 111-071-29 111-071-05,-19, On Real Estate Services listing. Error? 4/23/1986 _1230A6 22 ' 4549 36180 29 111-071-05,-19, Real Estate Services Listing. Revision of above 4/23/1986 �J2206;221' 4549 36180 24 111-101434 Possibly the 56 parcels owned by the Oceanvjew - 12/23/1985 1,888,747 4653 36169 .< par.);111-102- Mushrooms , (22 111 101=02` t =: 11/18/1985 10,336 4702 36172 111=101=05%. 1/14/1986 10,336 4666 36176 11111,1011m()7;'-40; 11/4/1985 . . 36,450 4662 36175 ry - N 111 102=16 111-101-20 - 4 ' F_::. 10/16/7985 : 13,350 4661 36170 11.1-101=26;-44. _, 10/16/1985 42,000 4660 36171 111-101-29': x=.: .,-. f 12/13/1985 ' 13,350 4664 36174 111-101-31 _ 12/9/1985 13,345 4663 36173 111-102-13 f 6/1211986 . 13,340 4711 36183 Remaining parcels noted as bein ;"on tax roll"'=s'j:;` : -.:•1=-L: x x.; 2,041.254 V' O CP'rRICH1 ORANGE cou rl ASSESSDR 1999 i T7 111-07 POR. M 112. SEC. 35. T.5S.. R.11W. I 159-20 159-21 Oceanview Estates '2 S 51 PAR 1.14 0AC. GDTHARD.' e .M' w v2. I 52 I 35 . 38 159-36 PROWNADE <!) Jr r 9.4?AC. 1.71 .7 P.M. 4.57AC. PAR AC, AC.JV r? 1 P.M. ?I-JO 1 37 ?.?6AC. 1 � I� 071 31 ".•' II 54 19.54AC. SSE 27>-30i6_1 II ?9.569 AC 55 I I i ASHLEY• DR 56 - 15.1D AC I09 I �- #�.r.::�.� 72 at 12 lz = 39 6.5e9AC. 4.75A C e a 25.,r�. 26 i e GOLDEN FEST § _ ;,_ - ► z 110-17 110-21 MARCH 1951 PARCEL MAP P.M. 207-12 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 111 PAGE 07 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OP ORANGE l I POR S W l/4, NW 1/4, SEC 35, T 5S, R.l/W �„ W QU "TCM ACT YOR,WI.O.MI'V..n..a Of1EFl11FlAY6@ © 07 19 ® O 16 © © 21 IB © O 2 /'. 50' O © I6 O IS 0 � U ® ® O � 0 ID 31 OI 9O O O II ® © II 1{ 9 10 - 4Q IE O3 � 07 MARCH /951 N07£-ASSESSORS BLOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK II I PAGE 10 O SHOWN/N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Stephen V. Kohler, Redevelopment Project Manag FROM: Dan M. Brennan Director Real Estate Services/(29 SUBJECT: Source of Funds for Land Acquisition - Huntington Central Park DATE: August 4, 1992 This memo is in answer to your inquiry regarding the above referenced subject. Attached, please find copies of letters and memos on the subject that will give you the information you have requested. If you have any further questions, please call me at 5544. DMB/rf 0353u CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNnNGTON BEACH To Max Bowman, Acting Director From Robert J. Fra Community Services Chief of Adminis ati Subject Potential Funding Sources/ Date April 13, 1984 Financing Alternatives for Acquisition of Land for Huntington Central Park (Ocean View Mushroom Farm, etc. ) Based on recent appraisals, it is estimated that the total acquisition cost for land for the expansion of the Huntington Central Park would be $5,259,500. The City has received approval from the State for a grant (50 - 50 match) of approximately 1600,000 for such land acquisition if the City makes a commitment towards the acquisition project prior to June 30, 1984. This memo will provide information on potential funding sources and financing alternatives for the balance- of the cost. We have previously discussed the need to finance such an acquisition over a period of years (minimum four to five years) . We have identified the following potential funding sources for this type of land acquisition: a 1 . Park Acquisition and Development Fund >f� 2. Revenue Sharing Fund 3. Redevelopment Agency 4. General Fund These potential funding sources are discussed in brief detail as follows: Park Ac uisition and Development Fund: There is a fund balance (estimated June of roughly $900,000 that could be used for any park project including the HCP land acquisition. In addition, the estimated revenue for the Park Acquisition and Development Fund over the next five years has been conservatively estimated at $4,750,000. An additional $2,750,000 is to be paid to the fund by the Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the Terry Park site. As you know, there are many potential uses for these funds as indicated in the requested projects in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The first priority in your department's requested projects was Huntington Central Park land acquisition. I believe we could plan on using $3 million of Park Acquisition and' Development funds for the HCP land acquisition over the next five years and still be able to complete the other high. priority development projects in the park system. To do so, however, means using other funding sources as described below for HCP land acquisition. Revenue Sharin : Revenue sharing funds can be used for acquisition of land for pars. ongress has authorized the Revenue Sharing Program for at least the* next two years and the estimated City revenue from this source from that authorization is about $3.5 million. This report assumes that we could allocate $1 ,000,000 of revenue sharing funds for HCP land acquisition, 11 Redevelopment Agency: If this area were included in the City's redevelopment program, then tax increment funds and financing mechanisms could be utilized for land acquisition. General Fund: This is the City' s most flexible revenue source and also, of course, the revenue source which finances the primary City operations. With the economic recovery apparently well established at this point in time, the City'-s General Fund revenue picture can be expected to be more favorable in the next five years compared to our recent past going back to Proposition 13 in 1978. Therefore, this report assumes that $700,000 of General Fund revenue could be used for HCP land acquisition. Summary The following chart summarizes one approach to the acquisition of the land identified in the attachments. Keep in mind that this is simply one alternative. The need for using Revenue Sharing or General Fund monies in the future years could be eliminated if other State or Federal grant funds become available, or if there are other sales of City owned park sites. It is, however, necessary to use some funding source other than PAN Fund for the first year estimated cost of $1 ,200,000. This is because the PA&D fund is not anticipated to have the full amount available in the first year. The State grant of roughly $600,000 is a matching grant and it would be in the City' s best interest to proceed with the full $1 .2 million (or more) in the first year so that our reimbursement from the State can be processed as quickly as possible. You will note that the analysis below indicates that the City will spend this $1 , 200,000 in the first year out of City funding sources and that the .State grant of $600,000 would then be reimbursed during the second year of the acquisition program. The actual reimbursement should occur within four months of the City's expenditure of the full amount, but I have indicated the reimbursement would be made in the 85/86 fiscal year in case there are delays and in order to illustrate the point that the City must finance the full $1 .2 'million up front. FIVE YEAR LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - HCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fiscal Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding Source 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 Total State Grant $ -0- 600,000 -0- -0- -0- $ 600,000 Park Acquisition & Develop. Fund 900,000 500,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Revenue Sharing 300,000 -0- 200,000 250,000 250,000 1 ,000,000 General Fund -0- -0- 200,000 250i000 250,000 700,000 Total $1 ,200,000 1 , 100,000 1 ,000,000 1 ,000,000 1 ,000,000 $5.30�O.00G�, Robert J. Franz Chief of Administrative Svcs. RJF/cg cc: Charles W. Thompson Dan Brennan b - t-r ' ° " STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEL <MEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P,O. 2390 SAS__ TO 95811 (91-,. 22-9596 August 16, 1985 Mr. Dan Brennan Real Property Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Brennan: Huntington Central Park Acquisition LWCF Proiect No. 06-00963 It was a pleasure meeting with you recently to discuss the above Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) acquisition project. Warren Gardner and I are pleased that the City will be opening escrow for the Phase I portion in the next few days. It was our understanding that the acquisition of Phase I will be prorated to come up with enough costs ($1.2 million) to qualify for the LWCF full grant amount of $600,000. The portion of the Phase acquisition not acquired with LWCF money will be used for a life estate mobile home park for people displaced by another acquisition. Should there be insufficient costs associated with the LWCF portion of Phase I, costs associated with the Phase II, scheduled for acquisi- tion in the next few months, will be added to qualify for full grant funding. The size of the acquisition as shown in the grant agreement rill be reduced from 20±-acres to 4.5f-acres. Upon acquisition of Phase I (and perhaps Phase II) , a revised map :rill be prepared showing the area acquired with the LWCF money and subject to federal grant requirements. This map should accompany final title documents. If you should have questions or desire further information, please contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Doug Ra ston Par and Recreation Specialist ,I� �, CITY OF F�UNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 May 30, 1986 Keith M. Steinhart, Park & Recreation Specialist DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Post Office Box 2390 Sacramento, California 95811 Dear Keith: Huntington Central Park Acquisition, L & WCF Project #06-00963 In response to our phone conversation and your following letter dated May 7, 1986, here is the information you requested. Enclosed is the City's Central Park Masterplan in which you may find a plat map showing the specific area in question which we have purchased. The total area purchased to date, of the outlined area, is 10.05 acres at a cost of $3,079,570.. Of this, the mobile home compound contains a total of 2.32 acres, leaving 7.73 acres as the balance for park purposes, which gives us a net sum of $2,368,664 as monies spent for recreational vehicle park acquisition purposes.. Included in this packet are: 1. Statements of Just Compensation. 2. Purchase Agreements 3. Escrow Instructions 4. Closing Statement 5. Deed 6. Appraisal 7. Title Policies If you need further information, please call Paul Larkin (714) 536-5445 or Dan Brennan (714) 536-5544. We would like to get this finally wrapped up. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Sincerely, 25� DAN M. BRENNAN Real Property Management D MB:skd 15 A 2584j ' ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 September 25, 1986 Mike Mullins Department of Parks and Recreation P. 0. Box 2390 Sacramento, California 95811 Dear Mike: Huntington Central Park Acquisition, L do WCF Project # 06-00963 The following information is provided in response to your recent questions. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on March 18, 1985 authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the owners of the property located north of Ellis and east of Golden West commonly known as the "Mushroom Farm". On July 15, 1985 the Council directed staff to purchase the Ocean View Mushroom Farm property from SBE Development, Inc. for $5,500,000 in three phases as outlined by staff. Phase I closed escrow October 23, 1985 for $1,500,000 Phase II closed escrow April 22, 1986 for $2,127,000 Phase III will close at a yet to be determined time, probably in 1987 For the purposes of the grant in question, we are using only a portion of Phase II land, (see plat map enclosed as P.I.Q.). The applicable land is 5.07 acres with a purchase value of $1,430,224. Enclosed, please find a copy of Mr. Miyashiro's re-evaluation letter supporting our purchase price. The City purchased the Mushroom Farm for the price that SBE paid for it. By the close of escrow of Phase II, the appraisal by Mr. Miyashiro was almost three years old. In addition, the appraisal did not include costs for business relocation or acquisition. The City needed the park area and was faced with the possibility of having to acquire by condemnation with added litigation costs if a mutually agreeable contract could not be struck. The City, under the circumstances, arrived at a sales agreement that met its needs and served the public in a fair and equitable manner. It should be noted that this 5.07 acres is only a small portion of the total amount of property needed to complete this section of Central Park. Thank you for your tireless effort and considerable patience in this matter. l, /pit.--- R BE RANZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:PL:skd la+ SEP p 1986 MANACE;b;E;q September 2, 1986 Mr. Dan Brennan City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Dan: You requested a review of your purchase of Phase II from the Ocean View Mushroom Farm property. Phase II consists of 2 parts totalling -7 . 26 acres located north and south. of the existing farm operations, as shown on your map attached. It was purchased on April 22, 1986 for $2, 127, 000 or $6. 73/s. f . My original appraisal with a Date of Value of May . 1983 valued this portion. of the property at $5. 25/s. f . Highest and best use of the property was .assumed to be for medium density multi.-family use. 'I have researched the available records for current sales of properties with a similar use potential. Based on this research, it is my opinion that your purchase price is within the range of current fair market value for the property as prices for this type of property have increased significantly since the date of the appraisal. Please advise if you need any more research or supporting data for this project. Sincerely, sumu Miyashir , SR/WA MUSHR001•1 FARM SITE . N7 • e � � sr �rAGE JW aF S��,Ec �,�F4.cC�S► /� c /' L_L.J r y W 0 . 'F— ROAD t'71s r��'r 'D ELLIS STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION r f r Y IX 2390 "`" 1ENT0 95811 UEC 0 L 1986 +AAN�GEMEW November 24, 1986 Mr. Dan Brennan Real Property Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Brennan: Huntington Central Park Acquisition L&WCF Project No. 06-00963 This will acknowledge receipt of your final payment request for the subject project. Please note that I am recommending the processing of your final payment request with the understanding that your agency agrees to: 1. Comply with the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1984. 2. Distribute copies.of the required Single Audit as follows: a. Department of Parks and Recreation 1. Audits Office - 1 copy 2. Office of Grants Administration - 1 copy b. Cognizant Federal Agency - 1 copy 3. Take corrective action, if any, to resolve the findings disclosed in the audit. If you have any questions, please call this Office. Sincerely, Keith M. Steinhart Parks and Recreation Specialist CONCURRENCE: 2�-- fM J. Warren Gardner :Supervisor 'Federal Grants Section November 24, 1986 Date V , (June 1985) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HVNnNGTON REACH To Max Bowman, Acting Director From Robert J. Fra Community Services Chief of Adminis ati Subject Potential Funding Sources/ Date April 13, 1984 Financing Alternatives for Acquisition of Land for Huntington Central Park (Ocean View Mushroom Farm, etc. ) Based on recent appraisals, it is estimated that the total acquisition cost for land for the expansion of the Huntington Central Park would be $5,259,500. The City has received approval from the State for a grant (50 - 50 match) of approximately $600,000 for such land acquisition if the City makes a commitment towards the acquisition project prior to June 30, 1984. This memo will provide information on potential funding sources and financing alternatives for the balance of the cost. We have previously discussed the need to finance such an acquisition over a .period of years (minimum four to five years) . We have identified the following potential funding sources for this type of land acquisition: 1. Park Acquisition and Development Fund 2. Revenue Sharing Fund 3. Redevelopment Agency 4. General Fund These potential funding sources are discussed in brief detail as follows: Park Acquisition and Develo ment Fund: There is a fund balance (estimated June o -roughly $900,000 that could be used for any park project including the HCP land acquisition. In addition, the estimated revenue for the Park Acquisition and Development Fund over the next five years has been conservatively estimated at $4,750,000. An additional $2,750,000 is to be paid to the fund by the Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the Terry Park site. As you know, there are many potential uses for these funds as indicated in the requested projects in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The first priority in your department's requested projects was Huntington Central Park land acquisition. I believe we could plan on using $3 million of Park Acqufsition and' Development funds for the HCP land acquisition over the next five years and still be able to complete the other high priority development projects in the :park system. To do so, 'however, means using other funding sources as described below for HCP land- acquisition. Revenue Sharing: Revenue sharing funds can be used for acquisition of land for par s. oC ngress has authorized the Revenue Sharing Program for At least the' next two years and the estimated City revenue from this source from that authorization is about $3.5 million. This report assumes that we could allocate $1 ,000,000 of revenue sharing funds for HCP land acquisition. / Redevelopment Agenc. If this area were included in the City's redevelopment program, then tax Increment funds and financing mechanisms could be utilized for land acquisition. General Fund: This is the City' s most flexible revenue source and :also, of .course, the revenue source which finances the primary City operations. With the economic recovery apparently well established at this point in time, the City' s General Fund revenue picture can be expected to be more favorable in the next five years compared to our recent past going back to Proposition 13 in 1978. Therefore, this report assumes that $700,000 of General Fund revenue could be used for HCP land acquisition. ` Summary The following chart summarizes one approach to the acquisition of the land . identified in the attachments. Keep in mind that this is simply one alternative. The need for using Revenue Sharing or General Fund monies in the future years could be eliminated if other State or Federal grant funds become available, or if there are other sales of City owned park sites. It is, however, necessary to use some funding source other than PA&D Fund- for the first year estimated cost of $1,200,000. This is because the PAN fund is not anticipated to have the full amount available in the first year. The State grant of roughly $600,000 is a matching grant and it would be in the City' s best interest to proceed with the full $1 .2 million (or more) in the first year so that our reimbursement from the State can be processed as quickly as possible. You will note that the analysis below indicates that the City will spend this $1 ,200,000 in the first year out of City funding sources and that the State grant of $600,000 would then be reimbursed during the second year of the acquisition program. The actual reimbursement should occur within four months of the City's expenditure of the full amount, but I have indicated the reimbursement would be made in the 85/86 fiscal year in case there are delays and in order to illustrate the point that the City must finance the full $1 .2 'mill ion up front. 4 FIVE YEAR LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - HCP .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .Fiscal Year. . . . .. . .. ... . ...... . Funding Source 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 Total State Grant $ -0- 600,000 -0- -0- -0- $ 600,000 Park Acquisition & Develop. Fund 900,000 500,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Revenue Sharing 300,000 -0- 2009000 250,000 250,000 1 ,000,000 General Fund -0- -0- ' 200,000 250_4000 250,000 700,000 Total $1 ,200,000 1, 100,000 1 ,000,000 1 ,�000,000 1 ,000,000 $5,300 000 Robert J. 'Franz Chief of Administrative Svcs. RJF/cg cc: Charles W. Thompson �o Dan Brennan �� Imp Iry I po .ram■ ,ty,,.,' ;� ..,'r r. 1■ '•` 1 .+. ' :'1.' ..�.. nr �. lie IL IRK '�I 7• '�Id'. �, e,. :�.Ejy��r' iiL 'r• ".T' '1 411ZI '"5 1'Rl:•... ,t'� .. .. •� J 7 y � .r is _. � (p■ :f- p_,,; ; Ll 1;Xlk�, • �., .,/.�-- -c .M�.�.-. N...Jt.__11:A.=.-:_: <.Y►. �....:`• �- .-,. _'I 3L:-f-=-1:3L.� _ •�O.— .. '�-.�r•is'" �. . ._��,. ��[ �-.��. ��.1�... J t. � j l�' . '�I�11 ��14'�1 `'� `�i.�:i ��� Ad+._.ram 'y a+.r� �,� 7' q7 Ac. 'a 014ASF I 6, Q Ac. rN.SF • 3v FA, R a yz = a u�c U -. a(, --aC;Ctc: 3� C (3) ' - `b cn WPASE 7d? S T w g9 AC. - -- lN ESCrW►•/ _. . . APf'UveD Fort PVACHAce l�3AC. L C,yCcVvCIL i UrELLIS •r o- • 'emu p r�� ENG 12 6- 4 L .:...�.-� ITISIN.'10;1 f AID' I • ^'�.`.�.��+�v Js.v -..."'__ �.�r^'..'�' wL.-. ... ,7 ;r,,:3i cfJ_,,,,�_�., -t •......, -r`� 4 �+'ae. wrl'Et1='° •..30=' - � ...�L...r1��.+:-t�.�'-r.L.�� 4 -'{'r�J_.- � �r`:�L,��'^.`.j^'�f r�;� _t!..'a^c'>s•�['/-�--�-- -r,. �'" . �-=` �I.��f1�' ¢'p_rgap��,'{�,���•��., r °r' j��.t,�' - ..n. •�.tErr �r'r+ :`mac' bra 'E{:.•.a r. o-., s y - li�.11nl lll.��i .n'`. '�a�'irL�Cau, /.¢f "��,�• ••:. �. F �• � 1� ��,. � ��`' (IIt� ��" c�:/-ilQ•.l. ._fhr o� _ � � � x iy t q( '' �•, �-. 6 _ Zvi �' l�--sw. _' .,. -` _ � _—jam• '.JL w 2Y.1^• +� 1_iYa'W_ Y'Mgs4 •L , .� � r,/-r ..y � .ITS. '� C�� -r�. � � � •L. V •C �t� 4 w"�_ i r•' �e d4�'W,�r � ., d• _ _.._ 7 �L- i4' it—iy _:r E•yA r �� .'"•� �":1crS'� 1L' fir-� ,4�' ,.,y� o t?a�. ��l- Q�� `.r. I�..Lrc.u...'..��• .�.��:13�.,N3,r twy�Sq .�f rr ,� 1 77 .49 m sue-- .f'L3``r��,• .+oow f�y1,-,,ram y}.kq p .�''r- t k-y*4 ��f <j 4 MUSHROOM FARM Total Acreage: 25 .11 PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE ZONING LAND USE OWNERSHIP 111-071-05 2. 47 RA-O-CD Mushroom Farmer Di Stefano 111-071-19 5. 01 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Grow( 111-071-25 2. 27 M1-CD Truck Repair Bradley 111-071-26 . 23 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Pariseau 111-071-27 1. 26 Ml-CD Mushroom Farm Hudson 111-071-28 1 . 25 M1-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growc 111-071-29 .'2 9 -3-A RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Jr Ocean- View Mushroom Grow; 111-071-32 7 . 33 RA-0-CD Mushroom FarmffOcean View Mushroom Growe 111-101-1-44 2. 98 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Grow( 111-102-1-25 2 . 01 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Grow( 25. 11 Estimated Value $ 5 per square foot Advantage of Site: 1 . Larger than 10 acres 2 . Primarily under one ownership 3 . Existing use is temporary Disadvantages of Site: 1 . Not under City ownership 2 . Not General Planned for residential 0 •J� 1 c - - /r b1 MLOMNGTON b--. i MVILOPMEKT SERVICES CC1 P.O. Boa 190 159-19 HwUrOm Belch,GA 92Wj 5 � Poe 4C4 �uv Sn 1t�-T ! 2 c V I !I 2 C35, 0 J (9.d1/C. .57A;. ;?91AC'/9, .4/2_24A C !r ' _7,!AI AC �± f-7 A C.AC ` j IwCI --i j I v.M i7.JC /Et AC ---- Q72 FZ—; rRL AV N e ii ♦sEAC I �a 2 3l — —� !o '�/S.34AC I 4.40 AC POOACJ6�AC 4-� Oa) u ^ RS.B6-?S4-3 ! i X b 4 wr AC J l_ C� T C7 > , T j 2l S"..4r 'Sef.rLd Ar£7 sr g i s Ca rt 9 p Zr rr PdA O {0 4. 4118AC `5 . l!-A: i. 78 A.' _ L OL i E v WE-5- c`� r N rd Sa / f RCfL !JU%?£� BGOr: I i! Fe E C. - .. _ ._... _ _._ ....,... ... =•—,ems^.—. - --� :�� _ _ __�:.='� - a '� ^b.-• {•r♦L Ire: +., ..;:. .�iJ7� '.. •,�i �I'! '� �r V'4"•na rr J� � � �� •At� '' "� .� �. d F,, �'A.. ,�i GtYY ,! r •� �^�. -G�IlnunYrnPl r ^`;Yr9•��,r� /l'"� •'rHj$!:; w,��{_I�J �'].t t� y �y � �a I fi d �- t1." ,�IIt �t.t � a. � { •1„ ..�^n �,,�`�a,� ` �� .'C •r� _g4. `�1", s` ;�/: 1 r �• �...� � 'f � .r 'erg' � "' � � .r34y ,� •,? f _.ter/•� O �- .il aV......r �1 Sr" �.. '!T�' � '' �4tR {y. 1 r �.Y � '•�'ti•,P. � e it `+�,� , i �„'a. f:�'I IL TIM Timm mmm r I •�e. .T:;- :`J Stu':?a.r �. ® t , - t ; fl T�.� f' �f�`�tl`'E..EJ�♦.'f���-'� �\. '.if♦ .{ �iNr--: r- 14�5 y�.-�, - �'ct ��`*;C•c)� goal �� r o '1r, ai fl' •�„i• � ,{ `Y 1 �� �'7, �. i a �y", r r � _ ���u � i... =•}.'`. +: r rr�� ,r•s{ ,�. 2'r j ry4'j 7 �s �+ /••,r�y �'' ^l'+y'rrj ♦ �♦°' i a!A t 7 1 � r I 'r w•r '�s`.•.._ b�rlj(•C•.yfS,�',�kd.� �(`1'^I )l� j, f. 7 ac. •7T \ �'�1"irj 7 ��JtY'+G� '1 ,`f.7 'e y.•r_+.. � ram' ',.i i '_ TmS-• { � e1,�1 ��, � � - }{ y r i r.. �,0 c .�d dlCo � ''�!'••„' �t,: t:. _-� ,6 �ti_6.1y11 ' r. .r �f ba f r 7+ '�'�.✓,- '� i✓ F s•J -1.L. I.a Gk"{_k..lfiw� 7�{�..'wYl�: �r',. � f � .'_•• `4��..._ 7'71z'i"`"n4 'l�= r1 -rK�{aI.�L e•"rl ~� yltk., n } /. � HUNTINGTON BEACH - NIA�TALBERT F 17 G'.e �vcLti /�✓� 0 NGE COU TY TRANS FAR TATION 18131, po•``' DJ4, W 18241 - Q -- 18291 = ;n 18301 Q i 2 Ld G1 o FIRE STA aTRAINING FAG c� 843 18442 18448 ' o City ®f Huntington Beach. 215'/z MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 �3 L, ,._- HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 26 , 1989 Mr . Ron Bissel RMW 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Dear Mr. Bissel , The City of Huntington Beach will be requesting an Environmental Impact Report for certain proposed improvements to Huntington Central Park. The projects include an expansion of the existing :-� Ocean View Estates Mobilehome Park, construction of an eighteen } :hole golf course and the realignment of Talbert Avenue . The z, targeted site is outlined on the attached map. We would like to begin the archeological survey_ of the site as soon' as possible . Toward that end we are soliciting cost estimates for that survev. If you are interested in participating please contact Laura Phillips , Planning Department at ( 714 ) 536- 5270 or me at ( 714 ) 969-2185 . Thank you for your attention to this matter.. Very truly_ vour.s , Susan Hunt Department of Redevelopment SH: kjl Attachment Telephone (714) 969- 185 w • 1 �{ MINMA, ;��•�®®sus 19 L UK MV Nis! . m! ! 1,` INWIA _. r'l t• a • lob0 1111 LIL BMW 0.01 ��tCbl•\{:IUD V: , r�.fC ,1 '?' �. ���' ♦` � _ •I � �,� ..ate � ■ ■ ■ .i .■' 1 , � Lail�' �' •}1 •.�, ♦ t '! ■ 4jn11311LALJ �! ,• lPti9,q� y v .. r V T y 4.0 r i WNW 7- do - �—■_ ■� ■...�!�--,�s:_�::5`' .�.=3�Y� �t-ice� �� a +' •�'� •'t� • Y � •r. + y �a fay 1 'i.•_. 1 :! ,y. ,� Y• .�, /}1 '0 t CITY O►F HUNTINGTON. BEACH • t4 4 INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON-BEACH t "` To: - -,, Charlesi'W. Thompson Vincent., G . Moorhouse Ci:ty. Administrator Direc,t'or, Community Services Subject Land ,& ,Water Conservation Date " ,`November, 23;_,,1982 Grant In' 1979., Council approved an application- for funding through the Land.-& Water- Conservation Grant ;Program for acquisition of 8 .'97'.. acres' o'f property located, on ,the::;northwest corner of Go.thard Street` and.'Ellis Avenue .,` This property was to, ,be acquired< for,.the purpose of developirig , anrecreational, vehicle campground in -.Huntington Central Park. This property as well as others located along . the north side of Ellis. Avenue,: west of Gothard Street .was .placed in a six- month planning. mode so as to study other potential uses for the property : !:The study resulted. in .the - Council deciding not to acquire the.-property at Gothard and Ellis : Therefore , to keep from losing the: $6o9,6_oo grant,' a .new.,;application was filed . for, eventual, acquisition of _the ;mushroom .property at the northeast corner of Golden West Street and Ellis Avenue . As 'a_ result, .the state ;has 'aubmit.ted?theattached. six copies of the project` agreement= for'ryour signature: Please" return these documents to this office after you have , executed them. VGM: cs _ Attachments ,,, ( j cln QF yUNTl�yro '���?INtST N BFACY OM � o ' 3 r } i 5R ` �'`f�3. #�'a e "S� " r t s r"�'3y '+`�` a• 'L h,, 1V Y b '. � ~{ ti J - STATE OF CALIFORNIA' Department of Parks and Recreation PROJECT AGREE,1ENT Land and Water Conservation 141.nd Program 'Project Title Huntington Central Park Acquisition Participant City of Huntington Beaci. gd Project Perio.+ 7/23/K to 6/-10/87 Project Number 06-00963 Project Scope: Acquisition of 23.45+ acres of land. The City of Hungtington Beach agrees to submit appraisal and preliminary title reports for the proposed acquisition by June 1, 1983. (Any reference to the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) or the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) contained in this project agreement, or in any attachments incorporated thereto, shall hereinafter be considered a reference to the National Park Service (NPS) . Stage Covered by this Agreement Complete Project Cost: Total Estimated Direct Project Cost (as shown in $ 3,073,696 (1) project proposal) Amount of-Line (1) subject to surcharge 602,372 (2) ` j Surcharge--State Administrative Assessment 1.2 % of Line (2) (subject to adjustment, see . Paragraph 2, Page 4) $ 7,228 (3) Total Project Costs Eligible for Federal Funding (Line 1 plus Line 3) $ 3,080,924(4) Federal Participation--up to 50% of Line (4) , or up to 509/6 of actual costs, whichever is the lesser, not to exceed: $ 609,600(5) Continued on are 6 pages numbered 2 through 7 inclusively. City of Huntington Beach PARTICIPANT By '�- Title STATE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND Date RECREATION /�! t/ By _ / VG `�� By b Date fr T-T 3 Title Date ACQUISITION SCHEDULE Estimated Estimated Value Estimated Value Total Parcel Date of of Land Estimated Cost of Improvements Estimated Number Code Acreage Acquisition Acquisition of Relocation To Be Acquired Cost 1 1 2.47 January, 1984 $296,400 Unknown - $ 296,400 2 1 6.89 826,800 Unknown - 826,800 3 1 4.78 523,600 Unknown - 573,600 4 1 4.98 597,000 Unknown - 57,600 5 1 1 .25 150,000 Unknown - 150,000 6 1 1 .03 123,600 Unknown - 123,600 7 1 1 .89 415,800 Unknown - 415,800 8 1 0. 16 89,896 - - 39,896 3, Y S TOTAL $3,073,696 Code: Negotiated Purchase OS\ { r. �+ t 6 9 TOTAL PARCELS ocEANv/EfY MUSyAoOM tscJ O 2.47AC. . ANGEL/NA G/ACAZONE(/I z� - CLEORA .S�OTCHff/SS t// $gam ALPHA COUNTS X OOYL£G/L BERTi�J afA�VYlEfv MA90,4RET AcSTO AERl/J JEAN Af HETHCOC1(/2J A!!/SAIRGb.H j A/AN/C11R/ST/AN B/ERY!/1 /82Gy 8c .N/CA/AEL 1Cfi'ACE OALANY/J) AUNT/NGTON CG./CA fZ E BLA/R/// ¢.78 AC AAClF/C C/TY 4FyUNr/NGTON BEACA/t21 O 6w .SI�CLY.�9iC�i� 2.5.4G l!r— i c'08 ENCY 478AC . gn Lois AC MAR/ON �817Gcb � R 2� A-4 3,COiO � /.94AC, �' Y/CRORA CORP. 3 2.3-1W 1832 DOO 7 S ot�,vriE�r p i /."AC. i "'AM£S Nl1Ds" 29Ss 2GY� i 4 LIZ c t 9!?G YENUc 0,49EL BRADLEr ?1MAR,9 eAR/SEAU :' r �8989 A C-P LAND ACQU/5I T/ON . PR�L //1�I//1/A RY C05T SST/MA TL< o� ToZo/ Acreoye =5934 Cos Lz 752,5�296 Biggs, David From: Sedlak, Robert nt: Friday, June 01, 2001 3:56 PM - ; Biggs, David Subject: RE: OVE/Mushroom Farm Background i just looked through the 89 90 budget and nothing for that amount jumped out at me...there are some items relating to ov estates....paid for by the redevelopment agency...but nothing for that amount.... -----Original Message----- From: Biggs, David Sent: Friday,June 01, 2001 3:37 PM To: Sedlak, Robert Subject: OVE/Mushroom Farm Background Bob -- One of the many mysteries of life I am researching for Councilmembers is the acquisition of the property upon which Ocean View Estates now sits. An October 16, 1989 RCA approve the settlement of the property acquisition for $3,750,000, of which $2,395,000 was already budgeted. This RCA states the new appropriation of 1,380,000 was from the Park Acquisition and Development fund. My question, do you have the background as to what was the budgeted funding source for the $2,395,000 in the 1989/90 budget? Thanks, David �I 1 CITY OF .,V',1.NT I NGTON BEACH MPROVEMENTS CAPIT. DEPAR ,. __NT FUNCTION ANDED PROGRAM NO. ": ROGRAM NAME Administration Development . FUNDING SOURCES AS INDICATED 836 Redevelopment BUDGET -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 87/88 FY 88/89 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- - ---------------------=--------- 1 . Pier Improvements 500 , 000 1 , 000 , 000 1 , 800 , 000 1 . Refurbish Pier Structure . Funding: Excess P . F .C. funds ( $500 , 000 in 87/88) and Coastal Conservancy grant/ loan (88/89 & 89/90) . 2 . Main Pier Water System 11000 , 000 2 . Enlarge System for Increased Demand and Fire Flow Needs . Funding : Advance from the Water Fund. 3 . Downtown Property 2 , 500 , 000 750 :000 750 , 000 750 , 000 3 . Acquire Property S Help Acquisition & Relocation Relocate Existing Tenants . Funding : Sale of Lake Street property & Talbert/Beach property. 4 . Townsquare Improvements 750 , 000 750 , 000 4 . Improvements in the Town ( 6th St . Realignment ) Square Area . Funding: Advan( of H.C.D. Block Grant Funds . 5 . Downtown Storm Drains 250 , 000 550 , 000 S . Two Storm Drain Systems to Relieve Flooding in the Area . Funding : Advance from Drainag Fund. 6 . Huntington Center 75 , 000 6 . Provide an Additional traffic Through Lane Lane . -Funding: Tax Increment 7 . Huntington Center Signal 115 , 000 7 . Improve Traffic Circulation . Modifications Funding : Tax Increment- Huntington Center . 8 . Gothard Realignment 500 , 000 . 50 ,.000 .450 , 0.00 100 , 000 8 . Improve Traffic Circulation . OS� Funding : Tax Increment - --� Huntington Center . Redevelopment Redevelopment lilturkru►L:1.L Of ���.�... YlUJCI lS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION y%=--------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 88/89 FY 88/89 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 FY 91/92 PROJECT DESLL"PTION ------------------------ -------- ; ------------ ------ -------- -------- -------------------------------- MAIN PIER PROJECT AREA ; 1. Downtown Property 2,000,000 ; 2,000,000 . 2,000,000 1. Acquire property & relocate Acquisition and ; ; existing tenants. Funding: Relocation Advance from City is excess PFC ' funds (Civic Center). 2. Walnut Avenue 1,000,000 ; 1,000,000 ; 2,000,000 2. Extension eastward to Beach Extension Blvd. Funding: Advance from the Gas Tax Fund or developer. 3. Lifeguard Headquarters 250,000 250,000 500,000 3. New building to replace current Headquarters. Funding; Developer ($500,000) : balance unfunded. 4. Walnut Parking , 6,000,000 6,000,000 ; 4. Provide supplemental parking .•rP ; in the downtown area. Funding Advance from the Civic Imprv. Corp. , and tax allocation bonds. 6�S 5. Land acquisition to provide "elemental parking in the --ding: 27. Overmyer Pump Station ; Building 28. Replace Reach I of 21 ; ; 200,000 2,000,000 28. Begin replacement of 35 in. Transmission Main ; ; year old transmission main. O�TOTAL IMPR0VF1►=S 1,420,000 ; 1,420,000 6,031,000 5,074,000 5,126,000 FORM 5A ---------- ' 558 REQUES) FOR CITY COUNCIL ,ACTION Date October 16, 1989 ..Iubmitted to: Y,onorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrato Subject: City vs. SBE Financial, et. al. ROVED BY Y �O1JNC7L 19& Consistent with Council Policy? [ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exc crrY Statement of Issue. Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Objective: To appropriate funds and authorize the payment necessary to settle Orange County Superior Court Case A:umber.57 10 18 : City vs. SBE Financial, et. al. Recommendation: 1. Approve the payment of $3,750,000 to the Clerk, Orange County Superior Court for settlement of OCSC Case Number 57 10 18 : City vs. SBE Financial, et. al. 2. Approve the amendment of the 1989/90 City Budget to appropriate an additional $1,380,000. for land acquisition for Huntington,Central Park. Analysis: The City Council previously provided instruction and settlement authority to legal counsel in regards to this litigation. Settlement has been reached and this action is needed to approve payment and amend the budget. The budget amendment is necessary since the appropriation for this land acquisition was less than the final settlement and estimated outside legal fees as follows: Settlement $ 3,750,000 Less Budgeted Amount 2,395,000 Sub-Total $1,355,000 Plus Litigation Fees 25,000 Additional Appropriation $ 1,380,000 Funding for the additional appropriation is from an existing project (Bartlett Park Development) in the amount of $1,300,000 and $80,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Funding Source: As indicated. Attachments: City Attorney memorandums dated October 12, 1989 4808j P10 5/85 Page 16 - .Council/Agency Minutes - 10/16/89 A motion was made by Mays , seconded by Bannister, to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creat- ing the Orange County-City Hazardous Material Emergency Response Authority, and appoint the Fire Chief to be the City' s representative and board member. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: Green (City Council) CITY TELEPHONE SYSTEM - CONTINUED TO 1116/89 The City Clerk presented a communication from the Fire Chief regarding the proposed new city-wide telephone system. A motion was made by Mays, seconded by Silva, to continue to 11/6/89 the item pertaining to the City Telephone System. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Bannister, Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: None ABSENT: . Green (City Council) CITY VS SBE FINANCIAL. ET AL - APPROVED - (PROPERTY AC(UISI- TION HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK) > The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator regarding City vs SBE Financial , et al - OCSC #57-10-18 relative to acquisition of property for Huntington Central Park. Robert Franz, Deputy City Administrator, presented a staff report. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Erskine, to (1) approve the payment of $3,750,000 to the Clerk, Orange County Superior Court for settle- ment of OCSC Case Number 57-10-18: City vs. SBE Financial , et al , and (2) approve the amendment of the 1989-90 City Budget to appropriate an additional $1 ,380,000 for land acquisition for Huntington Central Park. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Winchell , Mays, Silva, Erskine NOES: Bannister ABSENT: Green (Ci tx-Counci l)_STAFF REQUE�D TQ_REPORT ON POTENTIAL OF POLICY OF PROHIBI- TION OF A L/T0BACCO PRODUCT ADVERTISING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY A motion was made by Winchell , seconded by Silva, to ask staff to bring to Council amendments to City ordinances to reflect policy that alcohol and tobacco product advertising is prohibited on all public property such as beaches, parks, sidewalks , roadways, parkways, etc. 49 � CRY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER® E'PART NTAL COMMUNICAMN HUPMNGTON BEACH n,� r V_ TO: David Biggs, Director,Economic Development FROM: Jim B. Engle, uty Director,Community Services DATE: September 14,2001 SUBJECT: ACQ UISHTION OF W JSHROOM FARM PROPERTY Since Matt Lamb,Real Estate Services Manager,is no longer with the city,l am forwarding this information to you regarding the acquisition of the Mushroom Farm property. Community Services had checked with the City Clerk and Administrative Services to try to track down the acquisition of said property. The record is incomplete. The City Cleric's records show that the settlement to SBE Financial was for$3,750,000. The Request for Council Action(RCA)indicated that an appropriation of$1,380,000 was made from ; -. . .: the Park Acquisition and Development Find.,The RCA also references a budgeted amount bf- F t $2 395 000 The RCA did not indicate ilea futnclgn source for these A cheek of the budget�esords an A iratave daces also:,does not Tow flee funding sylle°ve exhausted �_ors potential avenues to try t®deterrn�ne the remamn ng faagaduag s®iarce �X s Al - k (�'*. �} 7 s r F Xs r+ y iairasz.,. a, F �•.�- x,+:' Note..Attached is the Mushroom Farm legal Zes'csigitior�prep d by Panbflac Works: JBEcvh'�,w ""u��7. w'�.. .. •.-•, 4-�; s t.,;.z a._.... :,3n� w.-)3 .,; � :t�v x^i.,,.t ,: �}r•"�"�c�+...� -r.in M,�'�Y' r-.., � �,�`,M Attachment ' � L • • •R lr } I 1 •.i � � 1 � 1 � . � � I.ttt 1 � ' �f�• .i�il 1� 4..L" � , -4- ' E.1' M� 11�11L� {�fy 'I.r S sa 7 .-I .. '7lr 1 Ycl �q{_! ¥•F C . �' 1 { i C».F iJ t } PS � ;: .3{ •+ s-+c ( a 1 ,iw t > , ` !. v 'r tt�r tr^111S S' i { t't , `_ )r,I tlall�c;1! �•�'� 6 atu1 t , S 3 {1 -�x�'•�.�yS� ��1 �, `—�� Fri It t 1 t Ffk.�l.i� r .� � r !t� C t 7 , • F 1 .i� r 't �QY t{6 � � ^�'` is t h�r��i ' 'i t t, �. ��j , { Z � I}i1'IJ-•, ' �� y� 1`• � t*� • � e kagF _�' f� i •� ,u fl I r ,�' 1 ti , a �� i i,r tt „=t,. I zl r.f l �,- 1^ t , � t f �• �.t7 t . `:'i, f 1 {� II �• >�,r at i! �_ f c � 1 1 J t.r F Flr.e 1� 't. 1 f zt t. ���r 1 i! � � t ! r• 1 6 { 4�'pyt� J r i t lJ r)L r,_ ! IY,�.1 ..3Y�'h_ '•5_., 1 }}/ ��t .?. F- r ..�1 r..Y'G'. • N • • J 1. "Ie CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION -MUNTu:G_TON BEACH - V/ROBERT FRANZ & ARTHUR DELALOZA To DONALD WATSON, TREASURER From ACTING CITY ATTORNEY Subject CHECK FOR MUSHROOM FARM CASE Date October 12, 1989 AMOUNT: $3 ,750, 000 . 00 PAYEE: Clerk, Superior Court Kindly arrange for a check as outlined above at your earliest . convenience. By carbon copy hereof, to Paul Cook and Rich Barnard, I request that the City Council be requested to authorize such payment at the meeting of October 16, 1989 , based upon authority to settle granted on October 11, 1989 . ARTHUR DELALOZA ,,,.`-;,Acting City Attorney t cc: Paul Cook, City Administrator Rich Barnard, Assistant City Administrator Justin McCarthy, Esquire Gail Hutton, City Attorney L�, r V� . RECORDING REQUESTED BY NO z.-C.ORDING FEE RE IRE AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: GOVERNMENT CODE 383 1 LAW OFFICES O n REDWINE AND SHERRILL .► O 2 1950 MARKC7 SrRLrr Z RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92E01 -M 3 TzLCPH0r4X 1I714, esa_sa>0 EXEMPT i . G11 C16 a� 4 NOV 211989 rn 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff s� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GA11Y L. Cs%;;;v'v C, ;; ; Clerk • •O 6 BY CrIP UTY � o. -E 7 -` 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) CASE NO. 57-10-18 12 municipal corporation, ) FINAL ORDER OF 13 Plaintiff, ) COMDEMNATION RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS 4 V S• OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA 15 S.B.E. FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ) -320 PM NOV 21-89 et al . , ) 16 ) Defendants. ) Q•cy�RECORDER 17 ) 18 Judgment in condemnation pursuant to stipulation having been 19 entered in the above-entitled proceeding, and it appearing to the 20 satisfaction of the Court that plaintiff has satisfied. said 21 judgment by depositing the just compensation awarded therein with 22 the clerk of the Court. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,- ADJUDGED AND DECREED 24 that: 25 1 . There is hereby condemned to the public use of plaintiff, 26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, as against defendants VICTOR E. 17 DISTEFANO and DIANA DISTEFANO, in fee simple absolute the 28 following real property situated in the County of Orange, State of I 1 California: 2 Parcel 1: The westerly 290 .00 feet of the south half of the southwest 3 quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 5 south, range 11 west, in the Rancho Las 4 Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51 , page 13 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California. 5 Excepting therefrom the south 16 .00 feet thereof. 6 Parcel 2: 7 The north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 5 8 south, range 11 west in the Rancho Las Bolsa, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 13 of miscellaneous maps, 9 records .of Orange County, California. 10 Except therefrom, the south 20 feet. 11 Parcel 3: The south 16 feet of the southwest quarter of the northwest 12 quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, township 5 south, range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a .�, °0 13 map recorded in book 51, page 13 of miscellaneous maps, z �p records of Orange County, California. .14 together with all -improvements thereon and rights appurtenant n 15 _ U� thereto (subject to the rights of said defendants under paragraph � 16 pQo - y0(Ad 7 of said judgment) for the following public use, to wit,, for 17 > ~ recreational park purposes and a twenty five-year interim use as a 18 mobile home park site. 19 A certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation shall be 20 recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of 21 Orange, California, and thereupon all right, title and interest in 22 23 and to said real property 'shall vest in the plaintiff, CITY OF 24 HUNTINGTON BEACH, and that all right, title and interest of 25 defendants, VICTOR E. DISTEFANO and DIANA DISTEFANO in and to said real property shall be terminated, cancelled and extinguished . 26 7 All real property taxes, assessments, penalties and costs from 28 and after the date of recording shall be, pursuant to Revenue and ,6D -2- 1 Taxation Code Section 5086.1 , terminated, cancelled and 2 extinguished . 3 Dated: 4 5 Philip E. Cox 6 Judge of the Superior Court 7 PY09 E Cox 8 APPROV D AS TO FORM 9 10 o ert Waldron 11 12 aN 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM N u N w -,:A,14 o t • : 15 Q� ^ ustin M. McCart y 16 z p p o 3�a4 a 1 17 w >� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 `'7 'e8 -3- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT "A" GTD 3742 Re: SBA: Financial Corp LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 : THE WESTERLY 290 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF- OF THE -SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, '. TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 511 PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. ` EXCEPT THE SOUTH 16 FEET. PARCEL 2s THE NORTH HALF .OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51% PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 20 .PEET. 3: y . THE jOUTH 16 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 3F THE . NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 4EST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 31, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. rr�r...rn rwM U� � I '' •;� ! Mr •Lr�Ij� r •3 rrwn `r• �RIrM� r>I' M}!}11+q �(}!• { m-07 16 PAR W W, SEC 34 T 55, R//W t. �••�' �»•31 _ Wit ro ' M1.► , � r• � I• • Imo: I.I K 1.N.K l r r •as ♦arc.dr ter 1 • v,Nr //r.t at 7 r...r 072 . • OI 1 - • .ul � � VO + N • 1 MK •�1 IM« i�r I st 3 ......,_�. LK Sly to12 1 fOL A!w Irsr �a•17 ��o•19 !� uo•2t &ore- 45sessoo's &Our 0 sssrssOw s wr rsocN i��i n.Wuc rw�.russ iO"161 ww or sM0/41 w G/RGus cO�rrr 4f pws! pe • n •vl��t r• 1 � Il!r 1� • A �1��, fIS: Ai N Aft Is nett cr a plat nor,:--survey It 1$ -09 turnishod merely 4s a convcnien .::_did you in locating tltA 1:. d LeWicated het con with re"co to streets and k:- ol;ter land. No lbbility is nssalmnr+ IN" - -5 AF,* I/l-o7/ - 159-21 0 1 3.2 B AC. 3 I Y I A 4l A.C. � 49 J.9/.AC. t .370 50 38 12 22 24 � a � 1. v O 3.11 AC. 4. C'.S7� 2.91 AC L 9- 4.12 AC. 70 T/ AC. s.0/ AG /./7 aG A C. P.M. 27- 30 �o '1 sr AC. 8 072 r JP .4.96 AC. 31 -o I p 22 19.54AC. r` 460AG 2.C9AC. .S.66-29 'j`� r• "~�mow:' p '0'. 1-25 ,ter. S 4.J?AC. 4.79 AC. 4.70 AC . www 3 taE�bc"T�WEST 110- �8 iIJ-21 NOTE — /;SCL CScre �S SHOWN /N CIRCl J• 4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ekj INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNT�INGTON BEACH '' ROBERT FRANZ & ARTHUR DELALOZA To DONALD WATSON, TREASURER From ACTING CITY ATTORNEY Subject CHECK FOR MUSHROOM FARM CASE Date October 12 , 1989 AMOUNT: $3 , 750, 000 . 00 PAYEE: Clerk, Superior Court Kindly arrange for a .check as outlined above at your earliest convenience. By carbon copy hereof, to Paul Cook and Rich Barnard, I request that the City Council be requested to authorize such payment at the meeting of October 16, 1989 , based upon authority to settle granted on October 11, 1989 . ARTHUR DELALOZA rN Acting City Attorney cc : Paul Cook, City Administrator Rich Barnard, Assistant City Administrator Justin McCarthy, Esquire Gail Hutton, City Attorney 4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY NO t,-CORDING FEE Rr383 ED AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: GOVERNMENT CODE § 1 LAW OFFICES p C7 REDWINE AND SHERRILL O 2 1930 MARKET STREET p RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 9,2501 T[L[PMON[ 1(714) 684-2 EXEMPT �aR0 m 1 P, 3 .�1 ' 00 � O C16 =Q 4 NOV 21 1989 '^ 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 6F,�Y L. GR;x'v`v ,; Clerk O 6 By 19 C-D"UTY a 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) CASE NO. 57-10-18 12 municipal corporation, ) FINAL ORDER OF 13 Plaintiff, ) COMDEMNATION RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS 14 vs - OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA 15 S.B.E. FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ) -329 PM NOV 21'89 et al . , ) 16 ) Defendants. ) a.�RECORDER 17 ) 18 Judgment in condemnation pursuant to stipulation having been V 19 entered in the above-entitled proceeding, and it appearing to the 20 satisfaction of the Court that plaintiff has satisfied said 21 judgment by depositing the just compensation awarded therein with 22 the clerk of the Court. 23 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED 24 that: 25 1 . There is hereby condemned to the public use of plaintiff, 26 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, as against defendants VICTOR E. 27 DISTEFANO and DIANA DISTEFANO, in fee simple absolute the 28 following real property situated in the County of Orange, State of 1 California: 2 Parcel 1 : The westerly 290 .00 feet of the south half of the southwest 3 quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 5 south, range 11 west, in the Rancho Las 4 Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51 , page 13 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California. 5 Excepting therefrom the south 16 . 00 feet thereof. 6 Parcel 2: 7 The north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 5 8 south, range 11 west in the Rancho Las Bolsa, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 13 of miscellaneous maps, 9 records of Orange County, California. 10 Except therefrom, the south 20 feet . 11 Parcel 3: The south 16 feet of the southwest quarter of the northwest 12 quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, township 5 south, range 11 west, in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a n « 13 map recorded in book 51, page 13 of miscellaneous maps, a } � N records of Orange County, California. a < 4 14 xm together with all improvements thereon and rights appurtenant o � 15 OZa.JF, Q < < - thereto (subject to the rights of said defendants under paragraph U W 16 'JZop 0 o�Wam am 17 7 of said judgment) for the following public use, to wit,' for M recreational park purposes and a twenty five-year interim use as a 18 mobile home park site. 19 A certified copy of this Final Order of Condemnation shall be 20 21 recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange, California, and thereupon all right, title and interest in 22 23 and to said real property shall vest in the plaintiff, CITY OF 24 HUNTINGTON BEACH, and that all right, title and interest of 25 defendants, VICTOR E. DISTEFANO and DIANA DISTEFANO in and to said 26 real property shall be terminated, cancelled and extinguished . All real property taxes, assessments, penalties and costs from 27 28 and after the date of recording shall be, pursuant to Revenue and -2- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION I 1 Taxation Code Section 5086 .1 , terminated, cancelled and 2 extinguished. 3 Dated: 4 5 philrip L Cox 6 Judge of the Superior Court 7 Wilrsp E Cox 8 APPROV D AS TO FORM 9 10 Robert Wa ron 11 12 J nN 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM wda4 14 15 z 3aj 'v Vustin M. McCarthy j W 0 a Z 16 Z °'q p = 0 Y w ^; m 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT "A" GTD 3742 Re: SBA: Financial Corp Ii LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 : THE WESTERLY 290 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP• 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51 , PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 16 FEET. PARCEL 2i THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK . 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 20 PEET. �CEL 3: SOUTH 16 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN HOOK: 51 , PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. 4 .•.....+ w wwras. ... fAAI/r W PINK �, � •.._ /. 1 1. • •'IM ltl r+ K for y+�•�; 1:., t •.ti Ai IY Y1�• 'rl'D'+�'�l��" K'r""�"r� � �� • � r� *r�'f`' � + ��. 1 16 li PAR WY?, SEC 34 r3S, R I/W 111-07 ;o 0 FPVF as SO-AID 1' ' /•.�a' nM31 � Val .a..a. .;+• {' r� a.20 a�-21 � �• •. _ r4. .� • • spoof� /tl N 11 Mk �t . ►� 0 A !sK /!rK ! (I at - ♦ Ov 0 III� , o7Z • � � .111 • le �MN ` 'war i1 Nit t •N�i farms ' • lilt C. IIN � io t. , tx ►O. — r 1: .16 �. IZ Sam •M!i `h •M�1 !I��: •MIi! �tr t� r•W r 1I � I sa pow •ls* 1 �_ r — r ta•17 la•16 Fua•21 r/ACM /1// more Issessom s AL"m a IsSeSsa s Alin O mars. NWOMS 000mati AW 01 � a. SNOWN W C'ec"S CAw►r of pAt 6f Wr In all M M, r • is n,it %r a plat nor a.survey. It is -09 lurnishod merely as a CUnVGnieSlce to aid you in locating 11 i Wicated Hereon with reie.:=•---n.cO to streets and ot:ier land. No li3bility is assumed'i'. on of any rQl+anCe hereon." N., .. . I t � 07 ti AF, * 111-.o7/ ��- -T _ 159-21 2� 0 J.2B AC. 3 Q O • Y O 9.41 AC. o 49 J.9/AC. �5 � 5O 3 8 12 2 2 24 "°• 9.42 AC. .71 J.// AC. 4.57AC. 2.91 AC 1. AC. 4.11?Ac. OJ.O4 AC.A C. P-M. 27- 30 1.61 A.C. 072 J7 l� .Q H ��•nr -Q 1 11 ti JD /7' 4.86.4C. ` 22 19.54AC. r� 460AC OX94C. S.66-29 4.Qi AC. O 1.23 > :::. :• u 2- 4. 35AC. 4.79 AC. 0.70 AC 2C /.09AC. I7 110-16 NorC c-- cam'; PAPC4 L SHOWN IN G1PC { Attachment 2 Emerald Cove Information h _ W� d Gee I ram.,y 7, Cl • S S �cAa t�cicrn �a,Q . Past cep w . Wt i Wp.4_d_ �&vt S1 Je , li cu j'vl.ac,,, NI� rev, 3�Y�� �f j `t ov, wzb 2d Gun �-�.�^� � s.�.ee ��� ?� • G��f 33y33 ! tA co O( ndj 6ft RESOLUTION NO. 5219 j A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN';SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of• Huntington Beach has previously declared a 10-acre parcel of land north and adjacent to Terry Park, between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive, surplus and stated its intention to sell said City-owned property; and WHEREAS, said 10-acre parcel is located within the Talbert-Beach Redevelop- ment Project Area and is proposed to be acquired by the Huntington Beach Redevelop- ment Agency for redevelopment purposes, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does re- solve as follows: Section 1: The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to have prepared for the Mayor's signature the appropriate documents needed to convey to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency the surplus property more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1: Block D of the south half of Block C of Tract No. 570, as shown on a map recorded in book 19, page 41 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, •California. Excepting therefrom. the southerly 360 feet of Block D. Parcel 2• The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 5 south, Range 11 west in the Rancho Las Bolsas, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, page 7 and following of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Excepting therefrom all minerals, gas, oil , petroleum, naptha and other hydrocarbon substances in and under said land, together with all necessary and convenient rights to explore for, develop, produce, extract and take the same subject to the express limitation that any and all operations for the exploration, development, production, extraction and taking of any of said substances shall be carried on at levels below the depth of 500 feet from the surface of said land by means of mines, wells, derricks and/or other equipment from surface locations on adjoining or -neighboring land lying outside the above described land and subject further to the express limitation that the foregoing reservation shall in no way be interpreted to include any right of entry in and upon the surface of said land. Parcel 3: j The east 10 feet of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of the "northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 5 south, Range 11 west. Section 2: The City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to _ sell said surplus property to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency for fair market value which is determined to be $2,750,000. The Agency will com- pensate the City for said conveyance from, and at the times Agency receives, the proceeds from the sale of the 5-acre industrial site and from future tax increment dollars. A ten percent (10%) annual interest rate shall be applied to any unpaid balance of the original sales price from the date that the Redevelopment Agency accepts the conveyances of the property until the full sales price is paid. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February , 1983. ATTEST: y MerK Mayor INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director, Business and Industrial C ty Attorne Enterprise APPROVED.- City Administrator Res. No. 5219 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) +�1 I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of February , 19 83 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, MacAllister, Mandic, Finley, Bailey, Kelly NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California a - / SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DISPOSITION AMID DEVELOPMENT AGPdaMU FOR THE SALE OF LAND FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT BY THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY Pursuant to Section 33433 of the Community Redevelopment law (Health and Safety Code, State of California), the following summary is provided relative to the proposed sale and leasing of property within the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project area adjacent to Terry Park. 1. Proposed Agreement. j A copy of the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement for the sale and leasing of land for private development between the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the William Lyon Company is attached as Item D.-3b-8. 2. Properties to be Conveyed. The attached map (Exhibit A) delineates the boundaries of the parcels which are to be conveyed to the William Lyon Company. Parcel 1 will be sold at fair market value and Parcel 2 will be ground leased for a period of 15 years. 3. Cost of Agreement to Agency. The Cost of the Agreement to the Agency is estimated to be $1,530,000. This amount includes the following: .D Land Acquisition $1,320,000.00 Rough Grading 4,000.00 Public Street and Utilities 36,000.00 Repayment of Deferred Fees 170,000.00 Total 1,530,000.00 4, . Estimated Interest on Financing. A- - The Agency will aoquire the site from the City and will pay the City for the ' land over a 30 year period at a 10% interest rate. In addition, the City will .:, finance and construct the needed irrprovements and defer payment of the project fees to allow said fees to be paid by Agency over a period of years. Thus, the total anticipated amount of interest to be paid to the City will be approximately $3,300,000 over the 30 year period. 5. Value of Interest to be Conveyed. The value of the property to be conveyed to the William Lyon Company is as follows: Parcel 1 $ 900,000 The value of the consideration being received by the Agency from the William Lyon Company is as follows: Acquisition Payment 748,000 Credit for Reimbursement for Previous Lyon Co. expenditures .300,000 Total $ lf048,000 Said amount is greater than fair market valve. r REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date April 6, 1988 'Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator Prepared by:. Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Subject: Proposed Rent Increase for Emerald Cove Housing Com ex s�G� /jI0 /��itJ7 .tMCNGP3 e " 6~ >*4 o-� 7.PA, ,00"a 7D 0,4cc w �,�, s.,tq, ►- swol &b Gout jMI Ta Sf4e i�= e'osys Consistent with Council Policy? [x] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception CQ07 6 0 'e-AAC�b Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: Staff is proposing an adjustment in the Emerald Cove rent structure effective July 1, 1988. We are submitting this follow-up report to the Council pursuant to your request for additional information at the March 7, 1988 Council Meeting. Recommendation: Approve alternatives 4 and 5 on Exhibit 1 to provide a 4.2% increase in revenue for this project while limiting increases to residents of Emerald Cove to $6 to $9 per month. Analysis: The Emerald Cove Senior Citizens Housing Complex began occupancy in April 1985. One rent increase has been made to the original rent structure, a 7% across the board.increase on July 1,-1987. That increase was not sufficient to cover the anticipated expenditures for the, current year or for anticipated 1988/89 expenditures. Although the proposed new increase would not take effect until July 1, it is being proposed now in order to allow for proper budget planning and notice to residents at Emerald Cove. The revenues of the Emerald Cove Housing Fund are intended to cover the cost of its operation. Since the opening of this senior housing complex, the City and Redevelopment Agency have subsidized the operation so that rents can be kept at a minimum level. The Redevelopment Agency subsidy is financed from the tax increment funds from the Talbert/Beach Project Area. The entire 20% housing set aside of tax increment funds from the Talbert/Beach Project Area have been provided to subsidize rents at Emerald Cove. The City subsidy is from the $900,000 deposit that was made to the Emerald Cove Fund upon receipt of the funds for the sale of the previously owned property adjacent to Emerald Cove that was purchased by the William Lyon Company for the construction of Windward Cove. The proceeds from the sale of this land were deposited in the fund instead of being provided to the City's General Fund or Park Acquisition and Development Fund for use for other City projects. The interest earnings from this deposit is used as the City subsidy of rents for the project. For the current year, the combination of the City and Redevelopment subsidies is over $150,000. or roughly $77 per unit, per month. Even with the City and Redevelopment Agency rent subsidy, and the 7% rent increase of last year, the project is projected to have an $18,000 loss this year, and $19,000 next year if no further rent increase or subsidy is provided. The prior year loss (1986/87) was $78,000. The $78,000 figure is somewhat misleading, however, because the City made two "letter of credit" payments of $46,000 during fiscal year 1986/87. Normally only one payment per year is charged to thef,fund. Two payments were recorded for 1986/87 due to unique timing considerations related to the opening of the project and the bond financing progr§LW- P10 5/85 _.tEQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PROPOSED RENT INCREASE FOR EMERALD COVE HOUSING COMPLEX The letter of credit fee is the fee charged by the bank that guarantees the payment to bond holders in the event of a default by the City. The project construction was financed by a $4.6 million dollar bond issue. As pointed out in last year's reports to the City Council in regard to the needed rent increase, until the auditor's completed their first audit it was unclear exactly what charges would be recorded for the project during the first fiscal year. Council asked for more detail on how the above described losses are covered. The only answer is that the City, through the deposit made to the fund from the sale of adjacent land, would cover the cost by a decrease to the deposit. This, in turn, would lead to lower interest earnings in the Emerald Cove Fund which would result in less rent subsidy from interest earnings. One option that was suggested is to borrow additional tax increment housing set-aside money from other redevelopment project areas within the City as an additional rent subsidy to the Talbert/Beach Project. Additional tax increment monies will be received in the Talbert/Beach area in future years. The industrial site currently being developed in the Talbert/Beach area will generate an estimated $11,000 in housing set aside monies in fiscal year 1989/90. Under the current City policy, this $11,000 would go towards subsidizing rents at Emerald Cove. That money, however, will not be available until 1989/90. Council could authorize the use of $11,000 in the 1988/89 fiscal year from other redevelopment project areas as a way to reduce ..the current need for rent increase. This option is outlined in Exhibit 1 as Alternative 5 and would increase the current rent subsidy by $6 from $77 to $83 per unit per month. As outlined in the previous staff report, a different total rent increase was proposed for upstairs and downstairs units at the Emerald Cove Housing Project. Currently there is a differential of $31 between upstairs and downstairs units for studio units and $40 differential for one bedroom units. As indicated in the attached rent survey (Exhibit 2), such a differential is unusual with a more normal differential being $10 to $25 when any differential is made. Many apartment complexes have no differential between upstairs and downstairs units. When the Emerald Cove Project was first opened, there was a $29 differential between upstairs and downstairs units for studio units and $37 differential for one bedroom units. The current staff does not know why this large differential was established but it has created a problem whereby there have been tenant complaints about the rent structure. Exhibit 1 outlines a variety of alternative methods of addressing this problem. This is not an easy problem to solve since the solution, at this point in time, involves imposing a larger rent increase on one group of tenants than on another group. On the other hand, to leave the rent structure the way it is and continue to increase rents on a percentage basis simply compounds the problem. Staff recommends that upstairs rents be increased in greater proportion to the downstairs rents to partially correct this problem. Council also requested a breakdown of administrative and general expenses for Emerald Cove which has been provided in Exhibit 3 and an audit of the Emerald Cove expenses which is attached as Exhibit 4. Also brought up at the March 7 Council Meeting was the question of whether individuals could get receipts the day they pay their rent. The management is issuing rent receipts to residents at the time they pay their rent if the residents desire such a receipt at that time (see Exhibit 5). -2- . ---A-EQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PROPOSED RENT INCREASE FOR EMERALD COVE HOUSING COMPLEX Alternative Actions: 1. Adopt no rent increase. 2. Adopt a rent increase different from alternatives shown. 3. Request further information prior to acting on any increase. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Alternative Rent Increases Exhibit 2 - Rent Survey Exhibit 3 - Administrative/General Expenses Exhibit 4 - Audit of Emerald Cove Expenses Exhibit 5 - Follow-up information Exhibit 6 - Income Statements 3723j -3- C/ Sources and Uses of Funds The approximate sources and uses of funds necessary to provide for the sale and delivery of the Certificates and the refunding of the 1984 Certificates are shown below. Sources of Funds: Principal amount of Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,735,000* 1984 Lease Reserve Funds 408,940 Accrued Interest (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,143,940 Uses of Funds: Reimbursement of City Loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 460,000 Reserve Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 ,557 Escrow Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,025,098 Costs of Issuance (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,260 Certificate Underwriting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197,285 Total Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6, 143,940 (1) Accrued Interest from September 1, 1991 to September 26, 1991. (2) Delivery costs include Special Counsel and Trustee fees,printing, rating agency fees, title insurance fees, underwriters discount, Letter of Credit fees for 140 days after closing and other miscellaneous expenses. THE PROJECT The Emerald Cove Senior Citizens Housing Project consists of ten two-story buildings, and is located on a site of approximately 4.2 acres south of Talbert Avenue and west of Beach Boulevard in the City of Huntington Beach, California. The Project is located within the Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project Area. The Project includes 164 units, comprised of 132 one-bedroom units,each 610 square feet and 32 studio apartments,each 415 square feet. A clubhouse available to all tenants is part of the Project, and there are approximately 125 parking spaces provided for tenants and their guests. The Project was completed in 1985 by The William Lyon Company of Newport Beach, California (the "Company"), a leading residential builder in Southern California. Since completion, the Project has experienced a very high level of occupancy. As of July 1, 1991, there were 92 people on the active waiting list for units. The Lease Agreement provides that, with certain exceptions, 50% of the units of the Project will be rented to persons of lower income within the meaning of applicable State of California law. The City anticipates that substantially all of the units of the Project will continue to be rented to lower-income Tenants. A real estate appraisal for the Project as of July 8, 1991 estimated its fair market value to be $10,800,000 assuming market rents and $4,200,000 based on current subsidized rent levels. *Preliminary, subject to change. n -3- I , cnvE- -4 City g of Huntin ton Beach . . INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMMUNICATION HUNTINOT )N BEACH TO: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development FROM: Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services C ,. DATE: September 12, 2002 SUBJECT: Various Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues You recently posed a series of questions related to historic financial.transactions of the Redevelopment Agency. These questions focused on Ocean View Estates, Emerald Cove and miscellaneous accounting issues related to the booking of Redevelopment Agency debts. Please find attached answers to those questions in the order they were posed. Information regarding Ocean View Estates is not included in this packet but will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Staff is in the process of reconstructing all rents received at Ocean View Estates since inception and still needs several more weeks to complete that task. If you have any questions related to the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to call me at extension 5236. Thank you. C: Dan Villella, Finance Manager Robert Sedlak, Principal Accountant DMocuments and Setdngftodeka\My Documents\RDABED Projects\transmitflscalanswers9402.doc li/ • I I. EMERALD COVE A. Background on Land Transactions In 1983, the City sold land (later developed as Emerald Cove and Windward Cove) to the Redevelopment Agency for $2,750,000. The PA&D fund "accepted" the debt. A 10% interest rate would accrue on the unpaid principal (1983 CAFR, . p.16-17). In 1984, the RDA sold property for development of Windward Cove to William Lyon Company in exchange for a promissory note in the amount of $823,000. This "future asset" was transferred out of the RDA account and into the Emerald Cove Fund in 1985 (1985 CAFR, p. 19). The CAFR does not indicate what the proceeds were used for. See also Answer#3 below for more detail. Summary of total RDA debt still owed to the PA&D fund: $ 2, 750,000 million original note -$832,000 in land sale proceeds credited against RDA debt to PA&D -$177,000 repaid in 1989 $1,741,000 principal outstanding 248,000 in deferred development fees for both EC/WW outstanding - 2;368.000 in interest accrued on principal amount (1.0.% annually) $4,357,000 TOTAL RDA DEBT TO PA&D (as of 9/30/01) B. Background on Construction Financing In 1984, Certificates of Participation were sold in the amount of $4.6 million. This amount was booked in the Talbert-Beach project area (1984 RDA CAFR, p. 1). The 1985 CAFR shows the $4.6 million as being transferred as "long term debt" to the newly created Emerald Cove Fund (1985 CAFR, p. 19). The 1984 COPs were defeased in 1991. The 1991 COPs were defeased in 2000 as part of the Lease Revenue Bonds, 2000 Series A. The amount necessary to redeem the 1991 COPs was $5,312,709.. .(The remaining $11.7 million were used to construct South. Beach Phase I and the Beach. Maintenance Facility, complete Phase 11 of the Energy Retrofit, complete design of the Sports Complex, complete design of South Beach Improvements Phase II and construct improvements to the water system). The EC Fund contributes $405,000 annually to the Public Finance Authority, which in turn uses that money to repay a portion of the annual debt service on the 2000 bonds. �.z September 12, 2002 Page 2 of 5 1. Is property owned by City or Agency? Under the terms of the 1991 ground lease between the City and the Agency, title to the project would vest with the City upon termination of the lease, which would occur upon retirement of the $4.6 million COPs. The 1984 COPs were defeased and refinanced in 1991 and the 1991 COPs were defeased as part of the Lease Revenue Bonds, 2000 Series A. Therefore, title to Emerald Cove should technically vest with the City. However, the paperwork necessary to formally effectuate the transfer has not been prepared. Staff will process a Grant Deed and Quit Claim from the RDA to the City once financial issues have been fully resolved. The sale of land for Emerald Cove and the adjacent site for Windward Cove occurred. RDA accepted debt in amount of $2.75 million, to the PA&D Fund (1985 CAFR, p. 30). 2. When did the sale of a 5-acre parcel occur? What was the amount of sale proceeds, when did sale occur and where were sale proceeds deposited? The City received $832,430 for the sale of the 5-acre industrial parcel. Sale proceeds were deposited into the EC Fund, and then transferred to the PA&D fund as repayment for a portion of RDA debt. This is evidenced by comparing the 1986 CAFR (p. 27) and the 1987 CAFR (p. 39). This created a balance of $1,917,570 (principal only) in RDA debt owed to PA&D. In 1989, the RDA repaid $176,738 in principal (1989 CAFR, p. 46), leaving a balance of $1,741,000 in principal owed by RDA to PA&D (1990 CAFR, p. 49). This principal amount is still outstanding. 3. What was amount of land sale proceeds from Windward Cove, when did sale occur and where were sale proceeds deposited? The RDA sold Windward Cove to the William Lyon Company on March 26, 1984, via a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust in the amount of $823,000. The Deed of Trust .securing the Promissory Note was recorded March 26, 1984 as instrument #122393. The Note was payable in increments pursuant to a release clause in the Deed of Trust, with full payment of the Note due two years after the Note was dated, or by March 26, 1986. In the RDA's 1984 Financial Statement, the $823,00 Note is listed as an asset on the Balance Sheet, in the Talbert-Beach Capital Projects Fund. In the 1985 CAFR (Note 7, page 19), the $823,000 Note Receivable was transferred from the Capital Projects Fund to the Emerald Cove Housing Fund. It . C� 3 September 12, 2002 Page 3 of 5 was recorded as "contributed capital" to the EC Fund. From this point forward, the asset was recorded in the EC Fund. 4. Deferred fees of $170,000 were identified in the 33433 report for Windward Cove. Are these deferred fees part of the RDA's current general _.� debt to the City? Based on a review of all CAFRs from 1982 to 2001, there is no line item that matches $170,000 in deferred fees. Since Administrative Services did not prepare the 33433 report for Windward Cove, it is unable to verify the amount of deferred fees, or where the deferred fees are booked. However, in the 1989 CAFR, $748,000 in deferred development fees was identified. It appears that these deferred development fees were for multiple projects, and likely included both Emerald Cove and Windward Cove (1989 CAFR, p. 46). In the 1990 CAFR, the deferred development fees were further separated and $248,000 in deferred fees was attributed to both Emerald Cove and Windward Cove (1990 CAFR, p. 49). Again, the deferred fees for Emerald Cove versus Windward Cove were not identified separately. The $248,000 in deferred fees is still considered outstanding debt by RDA owed to PA&D. It is assumed that the $170,000 identified in the 33433 report for Windward Cove is included in this �► outstanding debt amount of$248,000. 5. The 1984 COP Official Statement showed a $460,000 reimbursement of a City loan. What was this for? The City apparently covered one year of debt service payments in the amount of $460,000 until the 1984 CON were funded. At that time, the City was reimbursed for the temporary advance. Since the advance and the reimbursement occurred in the same fiscal year, the transaction was not booked in the annual budget. 11. COMPOSITION OF LAND ADVANCES 1. Provide the composition of land advances. A review of the City/RDA Operative Agreements has been unable to reveal the composition of every single land advance between the City and the RDA. However, the following details are offered for some of the land advances. September 12, 2002 Page 4of5 1982-83 (as shown in 1985 CAFR, p. 30) Blufftop Park $405,400 1985-96 (as per 8115185 R(qA) Wamer/Aranda parcel (Talbert-Beach) $90,000 Mushroom Farm parcels $1,225,000 Robertson/Walker parcels (Oakview) $510,000 $1,825,000 1989-90 (as per 917189 RCA) The City sold RDA land in the Main/Pier project area: Waterfront $22,400,000 Main St. parking/commercial $ 3,133,500 California Resorts $ 1,512,500 Town Square $ 1,956,000 $29,002,000 1989-90 (as per 914190 RCA) The City transferred two parcels to RDA: Main/Pier parcels $2,267,000 9121192 RCA City sold two parcels to RDA: Third Block West (in Main/Pier project area) $2,819,730 71 Pacific Coast Homes parcel (Yorktown/Lake) $245,000 $3,064,730 2. Explain the portion of land advances that was a write-off recommended by Auditor. In 1995, the City's Auditor (KPMG Peat Marwick) recommended that staff review future tax increment projections for each redevelopment project area. As a result, staff reclassified $55 million in debt as "possibly uncollectable" (RCA 1012195). This debt was from all land sale proceeds due to the City by the Agency, plus accrued interest. Essentially, the Auditors recognized that the future tax increment would never.be enough to repay this debt. In accordance with standard accounting practices, the debt was removed from the City's financial statements in subsequent years. However, since the debt has never been formally repaid, it cannot be considered forgiven. Therefore, the RDA's annual financial statement continues to show the amount of outstanding debt due to the City attributed to land sale proceeds. September 12, 2002 Page 5 of 5 3. Can you locate an appraisal from the RDA's acquisition of the Waterfront site from City? The Real Estate Services Division retains appraisals for a period of ten years. The appraisal for the Waterfront site was conducted prior to 1992, and is therefore not in the files. III. ADVANCES FROM SPECIAL FUND 1. Provide documentation as to the RDA projects funded by advances • from Water, Sewer and Capital Projects Funds. Water Fund In FY 1987-88, the Water Fund advanced $1 million for a major water transmission line in the Downtown area (p.568, 1987-88 Budget). Sewer Fund In FY 1989-90, the Sewer Fund loaned $175,000 to the RDA for the Pierside sewer main project. These funds were used to construct an 8-inch sewer line to connect the pier redevelopment to the OCSD trunk in the beach parking lot (p.512, 1989-90 Budget). RDA repaid $40,000 to the Sewer Fund, so the outstanding principal amount owed to the Sewer Fund is $130,000. Drainage Fund In FY 1987-88, the Drainage Fund advanced $250,000 to refurbish two storm drain systems to relieve flooding (p.558, 1987-88 Budget). Gas Tax Fund In FY 1988-89, the Gas Tax Fund advanced $500,000. The funds.were to be used for the extension of Walnut Street (p.547, 1988-89 Budget). Capital Proiects Fund In FY 1989-90, the Capital Projects Fund advanced $200,000 to the Yorktown/Lake Project Area for Civic Center parking lot improvements. The parking improvements were to be constructed in conjunction with residential development adjacent to the Civic Center (p.499, 1989-90 Budget). The principal debt owed by the RDA to these separate funds is booked each year in the annual CAFR. The total debt owed also includes deferred development fees related to these projects, and accrued interest. Interest currently accrues at a rate comparable to the interest earned on the City's pooled investments. DADocuments and Settings\bodeka\My Documents\RDMED Projects0scalquestions.doc ATTACHMENT l: Emerald Cove i A. Background on Land Transaction � ILO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, CONTINUED June 30, 1983 C. Total Columns on Combined Financial Statements Total columns on the Combined Financial Statements are captioned memorandum to indicate they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations, or changes In financial position in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have. not been made in the aggregation of this data. D. Reporting Entity The accompanying financial statements of the City include the financial activities of all departments and agencies comprising the City of Huntington Beach as a legal entity. There are certain separate legal entities which share the title "City of Huntington Beach", including the Public Facilities Corporation, the Parking Authority, the Redevelopment Agency and the West Orange County Water Board. These entities are autonomous organizations with their own governmental powers and constituencies. They maintain their own financial records and Issue financial statements separate and distinct from those of the City as required by the statutory law or by the appropriate bond indenture agreements. The financial activities with the Public Facilities Corporation, the Parking Authority and the Redevelopment Agency have been fully described in Notes 4, 5 and 1.E, respectively. The operations and financial activities with the West Orange County Water Board are immaterial to the City. Accordingly, the financial statements for these related entities are not included herein. E. Transactions with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach The City and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the Agency) are separate but related entities, and the members of the City Council serve as the governing body of the Agency. The amounts due from the Agency consist of the following: Amount Notes receivable in consideration for land conveyed to the Agency for development $3,155,536 Advances to the Agency for the purpose of providing operating capital and to assist in the acquisition of land for development in the Main—Pier Project 235,066 3 390 602 The notes bear interest at ten percent per annum, which amount is recognized when received under the modified accrual basis of accounting. Additionally, these amounts have been offset by a corresponding deferred income account and payments will be recorded as revenues when received. The notes will be paid as follows: 00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, CONTINUED June 30, 1963 Amount From tax increment revenues as they become available and after repayment of all other obligations of the Main-Pier Project 405,536 From proceeds of the sale of the land in the Talbert-Beach Project 2 750 000 3 155 536 The City and the Agency also provide certain administrative and other services for each other on a cost reinbursement basis. Basis of Accounting Governmental fund types and the expendable trust funds use a modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when measurable and available. Revenues which are accrued include federal and state grants and subventions, property taxes, interest and certain charges for current services. Revenues which are not considered susceptible to accrual include certain licenses, permits, fines, forfeitures and penalties. Expenditures, other than interest on long-term debt and employee compensated absences (vacation and sick leave), are recorded when the liability is paid. Proprietary fund types are accounted for on the accrual basis. Encumbrances Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed as a budgetary control in the General and Special Revenue Funds._ 'Encumbrances outstanding at year end are reported as reservations of fund balances since they do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. Cash and Investments Short-term interest-bearing securities generally consist of federal government-backed securities, bankers acceptances, and time certificates of deposit and are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investment income is allocated to the various funds based on the month-end investment balances. Inventories Inventories, which consist of materials and supplies, are stated at weighted-average cost. p f+ • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 1985 . 7. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (CONTINUED): Transferred From Debt Capital Service Projects Long-term Capitalized Fund Fund Debt Costs Total Cash $ 713,639 $ 3.783,570 $ - $ - $ 41497,209 Interest receivable - 12,278 - - 12,278 Prepaid expenses - - 126,500 126,500 E Note receivable - 823,000 _ - - 823,000 Construction in Process - - - 314,201 314,201 Accounts payable - (40, 188) - - (40, 188) Due to other funds - - (310,000) - (310,000) Certificates of participation payable - - (4,600,000) - (4,600,000) $ 713,639 $ 4,5789660 $(4,910,000)$ 440,701 $ 823,000 Capitalized costs represent amount previously expended in the Redevelopment Agency Fund. The net assets transferred , as shown above, were recorded as contributed capital in the Emerald Cove Housing Fund and as residual equity transfers in the debt service and Capital Projects Funds: Other residual equity transfers were made as follows: Transferred to Flood Equipment Transferred From General Control Replacement Special Capital Outlay (discontinued) $ 682,439 $ - $ General Fund - 200,000 2,000,000 CSee accountants' report. _19- � .1� ATTACHMENT I: Emerald Cove B. Background on Construction Financing l� If REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE 61TY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BALANCE SHEETS • June 30, 1984 Yorktown Talbert-Beach project Maio-Pier project Oakview project Lake project Capital Debt Long-term Capital Long-term Capital Long-term Capital projects service obligations projects obligations projects obligations projects fund fund account group fund account group fund account group fund A S S E-J 8 Cash, lacluding short-term Interest- bearing securities $ 3,671,026 $ - $ - $241,802 $ - $ - $ - $12,039 Restricted cash, Including short-term interest-bearing securities - 713,639 - - - - - - Accounts and Interest receivable //�17;69Q - - - - - - - Note receivable (Note 3) \823,000 - - - - - - - Amount available in Debt Service Fund - - 713,839-' - - - - - Amount to be provided for debt retirement (Notes 2 and 4) - - 8,270,206 - 686,106 - 15,638 - 1 4.511,716 1713,639 8� ,983.845 L24 1.,802 "686,106 5#63B �12{039 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES (DEFICITS) Liabilities: Overdraft $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 76,528 $ - $ - Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 41,039 - - 5,161 - 1,701 - 2,938' Notes and advances, Including accrued Interest. payable to the City of 4,383;845 - 686,106 - 15.638 - Certificates of participation payable (Note 4) - - 4,600,000 - - - - - 41,039 - 8.983,845 5,181 686,106 78,229 15,638 2.938 Commitments and contingencies (Note 3) Fund balances (deficits): Reserved for encumbrances 430 - - 2,670 - B77 - - Reserved for amounts receivable beyond one year 823,000 - - - - - - Reserved for debt service - 713,639 - - - - Reserved for capital projects 3,755,660 - - - - - Undeslgnated ( 108,421) - - 233,951 - (79,106) - 9,101 4,470,677 713,639 - 236,621 - (78,229) - 9,101 4�5_11,716 7$ 13.639 ;8,963 95 F2911802 �6�88,106 � �15,638 12�039 See accompanying notes. r REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS June 30 , 1984 3 . Commitments and contingencies The Agency has entered into several participation agreements with developers , the terms of which require that the Agency obtain and convey title of certain parcels to developers . On August 6 , 1982 , a developer filed a claim against the City for $2 ,800 ,000 in damages as a result of the Agency ' s breach of a participation agreement dated August 7 , 1979. The parties entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement dated February 7 , 1983 which stipulates each party ' s performance in settlement of the claim. Pursuant to the agreement , the Agency obtained title and sold property to the developer for construction of approximately 96 senior citizen condominium units in exchange for an $823 ,000 note receivable. The note, which is noninterest-bearing, is secured by land and is payable as the, units are sold. The r _ unpaid_ balance is. due . in March 1986. The . note is subordinated to the developer ' s construction financing and has been reserved in fund balance at June 30 , 1984 because it is not available to finance the Agency ' s operations . Also pursuant to the agreement , the Agency obtained adjacent property upon which the developer will construct 164 units of senior citizen rental housing . The housing project will be operated and maintained by the City pursuant to a lease agreement dated May 1 , 1984 between the City and the Agency. Payments on the lease begin June 1 , 1995 and will be made in monthly installments of $36 ,417 through May 1 , 1994 . Additionally , a final payment of $4 ,600 ,000 is due May 1 , 1994 . .. 4�. Certificates of participation During 1984 , the Agency issued certificates of participation in the total principal amount of $4 , 600 ,000 . The certifi- cates represent the proportionate interest of the owners in the lease payments to be made by the City to the Agency for rental of the senior citizens ' housing project .(see Note 3) . The certificates, which are dated June 1 , 1984 , bear interest at 9-1/2% and mature on June 1 , 1994 . Interest is payable semiannually commencing December 1 , 1984 . � 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON' BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 1985 7. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (CONTINUED) : Transferred From ' Debt Capital Service Projects Long—term Capitalized Fund Fund Debt Costs Total Cash $ 713,639 $ 3,783,570 $ — $ — $ 4,497,209 Interest receivable — 12,278 — — 12,278 Prepaid expenses — -- — 126,500 126,500 Note receivable — 823,000 -� — — 823,000 Construction in Process — — — 314,201 314,201 Accounts payable — (40, 188) — — (40, 188) Due to other funds — — (310,000) — (310,000) Certificates of participation payable — — �(4,6�00,00�0) — (4,600,000) $ 713,639 $ 4,578,660 $(4,910,000)$ 440,701 $ 823,000 Capitalized costs represent amount previously expended in the Redevelopment Agency Fund . The net assets transferred , as shown above, were recorded as _contributed capital in—the EmerEmerald Cove Housing Fund and as residual equity transfers in the debt service and Capital Projects Funds: Other residual equity transfers were made as follows: Transferred to Flood Equipment Transferred From General Control Replacement Special Capital Outlay (discontinued) . $ 682,439 ..$ — $ — General Fund — 200,000 2,000,000 ( See accountants' report. -19- lD ATTACHMENT I: Emerald Cove Question1#1 r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 1985 14. COMMITMENTS. AND CONTINGENCIES: a. There are certain legal actions pending against the City which have arisen in the normal course of operations . In the opinion of management and the City Attorney, the ultimate resolution of such actions is not expected to have a significant impact , if any, on the ! financial statements or operations of the City. b. The City established a program in February 1983 to provide funds for the purchase of home mortgages secured by newly constructed and existing single—family homes within the City. Under this program , a total of $40,000 ,000 of mortgage revenue bonds has been issued , $20,000,000 in March, 1983 and .$20,0OO,00O in July, 1984 . The bonds are payable solely from, and are secured by, a pledge of payments made on the home mortgages and all funds held by the trustee under the indenture agreements. The bonds are not an indebtedness of the City and there exists no legal obligation on the part of the City to make payments on the bonds from any source other than the revenue and assets pledged therefor. Accordingly, this program has been excluded from the accompanying combined financial_ statements.. 55. PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENTS: a. During the year ended June 30, 1983 the General Fund sold land to the Redevelopment Agency for $405,400. The full amount of the sales price was evidenced by a note bearing interest at 10% per annum. Through June 30, 1984 the sales price plus accrued interest of $40,676 was recorded as revenue. Since the funds were not available to the General Fund , the amounts should have been recorded as deferred revenue . The General Fund fund balance as of June 30 , 1984 has been restated to reflect this change. b. During the year ended June 30 , 1983 the Park Acquisition and Development Fund ( a Special Revenue Fund) sold land to the Redevelopment Agency for $2,750 ,000. The full amount of the sales. price was evidenced by a note bearing interest at 10% per annum . Through June 30, 1984 the sales price plus accrued interest of $275,000 was recorded as revenue. Since the funds were not available to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund , the amounts should have been recorded as deferred revenue . The Park Acquisition and Development Fund fund balance as of June 30. 1984 has been restated to reflect this change. i �jb See accountants report. -30- ATTACHMENT I: Emerald Cove .Question #2 t CITY OF HUNTINGTON B$ACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) i June 30, 1986 10. _GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT (CONTINUED) : f. Due to Other Fundsr The various transactions are described below: Sale of land by the Park Acquisition and Development Fund for $2,750,000 plus interest at 10% per annum $ 3,685,016 Sale of land by the General Fund for $405,536 plus interest at 10% per annum 539.9768 Cash advances from the General Fund plus accrued interest at 10% per annum 5,801,846 Cash advances from the Grants Fund 1,064,483 Developers fees payable to various funds to be subsidized by the Agency 734,744 Total Amount Due to Other Funds $ 11,825,857 Below is a reconciliation of the change in amounts due to other funds by the Redevelopment Agency recorded as general long-term debt for the year ended ` June 30, 1986: Amount due to other funds July 1 , 1985 $ 5 ,994,195 Advances received 4,913,841 Transactions recorded in other funds as deferred revenue 917 ,821 Amount due to other funds July 1 , 1986 $ 11,825,857 11. ENTERPRISE LONG-TERM DEBT: The following is a summary of changes in Enterprise Fund long-term debt for the year ended June 30, 1986: Balance Balance Outstanding Outstanding June 30, June 30, 1985 Retirements 1986 1963 Water Revenue Bonds $ 11111,000 $ 58,000 $ 1,053 ,000 San Joaquin Reservoir Note Payable 366,312 44,957 321,355 Meadowlark Golf Course Note Payable 1 ,804,917 23,656 1 ,781,261 Emerald Cove Housin Certificates of Participation net of discount C of $102,367) 4,497,633 4,497 ,633 Compensated absences 129,705 26,596 103,109 $ 7,909,567 $ 153,209 $ 7 ,756,358 Q See accountants' report. (o,� -27- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) JDNE 30, 1987 10. GENERAL II.tIC'Y4T M DEBT (CONTINUED)-. h. Long term Advances from Other Funds: Ele of land by the Park Acquisition and Development nd for $1,917,570 plus interest at 10% per annum: $ 2,807,551 Sale of Land by the General Fund in 1983 for $405,535 plus interest at 10% per annum: 593,745 Cash advances from the General Fund from 1979 to the present totalling $8,267,096 plus at 10% per annum: 9,448,419 Cash advances from the Grant Fund in 1983- no interest: 1,064,483 Developers fees payable to various funds totalling i690,329 .which are subsidized by the Agency with \ ;interest at 10% per annum: 835,298 Land sale from the General Fund in June, 1987 for $1,228,381 at 10% interest: 1,228,381 Advances from the Water Fund of $138,000 in 1986/87 plus interest at 10% per annum: 144,900 Total amount due from other funds $16,122,777 Below is a reconciliation of the changes in amounts advanced from other funds by the Redevelopment Agency recorded as general long-term debt for the year ended June 30, 1987: Amount due to other funds on July 1, 1986 $11,825,857 Advances Received 4,380,032 Reclassifications of deferred revenue, see note 8 (832,430) Transactions recorded in other funds as deferred revenue 749,318 Amount due to other funds June 30, 1987 $16,122,777 i 1 rpoort 39 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH +` NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) JDNE 30, 1989 12..GENERAL IAA! DEBT (CONTINUED): g. Long-term Advances from Other Funds: There is no fixed repayment schedule for the Redevelopment Agency to pay the long-term advances from the City which totalled $82,940,076 at June 30, 1989. Below is a description of the various transactions (in thousands) : Sale of land by the Park Acquisition and Development Fund in 1983 for $1,741 plus interest of $74 which was $1,915 computed at 10% per annum. During the year $177 of principal and $192 of interest was repaid. Land sales from the General Fund from 1983 to 1989 totalling $30,635 plus interest totalling $3,064. 33,699 During the year 358 of interest was repaid. Cash advances from the General Fund from 1978 to 1989 for $13,132 plus interest of $1,271 14,403 lk which was computed at 10% per annum. During the year $3,570 and $1,648 of interest was repaid. Cash advances from the Grant Fund in 1983 and 1989 no interest. 1,173 Developers fees payable to various funds totalling $558 which are subsidized by the Agency plus interest of $190 which was computed at 10% per annum. During the year $130 of principal and $117 of interest 748 was repaid. Cash advances from the Public Financing Authority in 1988 and 1989 totalling $20,979 plus interest of 21,340 $361 computed at varying rates. Advances from the Drainage Fund in 1987 totalling $250 plus interest of $53 computed at 10% per annum: 303 Advances from the Parking Structure Fund in 1988 totalling 7,425 $6,750 plus interest of $675 computed at 10% per annum. See independent auditor ' s report -46- O P P CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) JDNE 30, 1990 12. GENERAL I@IG-TERM DEBT (OCwnwm) f. Ccupensated Absences Payable: There is no fixed payment schedule to pay the governmental fund liability of $4,321,000 for conpensated absences earned through June 30, 1990 (see note lj) . g. bang-term Advances from Other Funds: There is no fixed repayment schedule for the Redevelopment Agency to pay the long-term advances from the City which totalled $104,849,000 at June 30, 1990. These advances were used to fund the operating and capital expenditures of the Redevelcp mnt Agency. Below is a description of the various transactions (expressed in thousands) : General Fund: Cash Advances from 1979 to -1990 $15,055 Land Sales from 1982 to 1990 32,903 Deferred Development Fees 49 Interest on above at 10% per annum 9,021 Total Advances from General Fund 57,028 Special Revenue Funds: Park Acquisition and Development Fund Sale in 1983 ::1,741 Deferred Development Fees Interest on above at 10% per annum 407 Total Advances from Park Acquisition $2,396 Development Fund 1 ' See Independent Auditor' s Report 49 ATTACHMENT is Emerald Cove Question #3 CITY OF HUNTINGTO9 BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 1985 T. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS (CONTINUED): Transferred From Debt Capital Service Projects Long-term Capitalized Fund Fund Debt Costs Total Cash $ 713,639 $ 3,783,570 $ - $ - $ 4,497,209 Interest receivable - 12,278 - - 12,278 Prepaid expenses - - 126,500 126,500 Note receivable - 823,000 - - 823,000 Construction in , Process - - - 314,201 314,201 Accounts payable - (40, 188) - - (40, 188) Due to other funds - - (310,000) - (310,000) Certificates of participation payable - - (4,600,000) - (4,600,000) t $ 713,639 $ 4,5781660 $(4,910,000)$ 440,701 $ 823,000 \ Capitalized costs represent amount previously expended in the Redevelopment Agency Fund . Thyassets transferred . as shown above, were recorded astransferred , as shown above, were recorded as contributed capital in the Emerald Cove Housing Fund and as residual equity transfers in the debt service and Capita Projects Funds: Other residual equity transfers were made as follows: Transferred to Flood Equipment Transferred From General Control Replacement Special Capital Outlay (discontinued) $ 682,439 $ - $ - General Fund - 200,000 2,000,000 1 1 \_ J See accountants' report. 2 -19- �O ATTACHMENT I: Emerald Cove Question #4 � .a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH j, NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) JUNE 30, 1989 12-- GERMAL I!*r,,nw DEBT (OONtniuED) g. Long-term Advances from tither Funds: There is no fixed repayment schedule for the Redevelopment Agency to pay the long-term advances from the City which totalled $82,940,076 at June 30, 1989. Below is a description of the various transactions (in thousands) : Sale of land by the Park Acquisition and Development Fund in 1983 for $1,741 plus interest of $74 which was $1,915 computed at 10% per annum. During the year $177 of principal and $192 of interest was repaid. Land sales from the General Fund from 1983 to 1989 totalling $30,635 plus interest totalling $3,064. 33,699 During the year 358 of interest was repaid. Cash advances from the General Fund from 1978 to 1989 for $13,132 plus interest of $1,271 14,403 which was computed at 10% per annum. During the year $3,570 and $1,648 of• interest was repaid. Cash advances from the Grant Fund in 1983 and 1989 no interest. 1,173 (, Developers fees payable to various funds totalling $558 which are subsidized by the Agency plus interest of $190 which was computed at 10% per annum. During the year $130 of principal and $117 of interest 748 was repaid. Cash advances from the Public Financing Authority in 1988 and 1989 totalling $20,979 plus interest of 21,340 $361 cor,pxted at varying rates. Advances from the Drainage Fund in 1987 totalling $250 plus interest of S53 commuted at 10% per annum: 303 Advances from they Parking Structure Fund in 1988 totalling 7,425 $6,750 plus interest of $675 computed at 10% per annum. See independent auditor ' s report -46- • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) JUNE 301 1990 12. GF NEML It3r]C TERM DEBT (CORmmm) : , f. Ccupensated Absences Payable: •There is no fixed payment schedule to pay the govexTmiental fund liability of $4,321,000 for ccupensated absences earned through June 30, 1990 (see note lj) . g. Long-term Advances from other Funds: There is no fixed repayment schedule for the Redevelopment Agency to pay the long-term advances from the City which totalled $104,849,000 at June 30, 1990. These advances were used to fund the operating and capital expenditures of the Redevelopment Agency. Below is a description of the various transactions (expressed in thousands) : General Fund: Cash Advances from 1979 to -1990 $15,055 Land Sales from 1982 to 1990 32,903 Deferred Development Fees 49 Interest on above at 10% per anmzn 9,021 Total Advances fram General Fund 57,028 Special Revenue Funds: Park Acquisition and Development Fund Land Sale in 1983 1 741 Deferred Development Fees 24 Interest on above at 10% per annum Total Advances fra, Park Acquisition $2,396 Development Fund C See Independent Auditor' s Report 49 i E ATTACHMENT 11: Land Advance Question #1 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued) June 30, 1985 - 1 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: a. There are certain legal actions g pending against the City which have arisen in the normal course of operations . In the opinion of management and the City Attorney, the ultimate resolution of such actions is not expected to have a significant impact , if any, on the • financial statements or operations of the City. b. , The City established a program in February 1983 to provide funds for t the purchase of home mortgages secured by newly constructed and ` existing single-family homes within the City. Under this program , a total of $40,000,000 of mortgage revenue bonds has been issued , $20,000,000 in March, 1983 and $20,000,000 in July, 1984 . The bonds are payable solely from, and are secured by, a pledge of payments made F on the home mortgages and all funds held by the trustee under the f •- indenture agreements. The bonds are not an indebtedness of the City t` .. and there exists no legal obligation on the part of the City to make payments on the bonds from any source other than the revenue and assets pledged therefor. Accordingly, this program has been excluded from the accompanying combined financial. statements. 15. PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENTS: t -- 1 a. During, the year ended June 30, 1983 the General Fund sold land to the Redevelopment Agency for $405,400. The full amount of the sales price was evi enced by a note bearing interest at 101,91 per annum . Through June 30, 1984 the sales price plus accrued interest of $40,676 was recorded as revenue . Since the funds were not available to the General Fund, the amounts should have been recorded as deferred revenue . The General Fund fund balance as of June 30 , 1984 has been restated to reflect this change. b. During the year ended June 30 , 1983 the Park Acquisition and t Development Fund ( a Special Revenue Fund) sold land to the Redevelopment Agency for $2,750 ,000. The full amount of the sales price was evidenced by a note bearing interest at 10% per annum . Through June 30, 1984 the sales price plus accrued interest of $275,000 was recorded as revenue. Since the funds were not available to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund , the amounts should have been recorded as deferred revenue . The Park Acquisition and Development Fund fund balance as of June 30, 1984 has been restated to reflect this change. C See accountants' report. -30- t REC' *EST FOR CITY COL' CIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION H 85-42(a)r' Z gate August 15, 1985 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members/ ubmitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members ubmitted b Y� Charles W. Thompson,. City Administrator/Chief Executive i4 ED BY 'repared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelop ctr1, co YC AMENDMENTS TO OPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH RED LOPMENT iubject: AGENCY 1 .'onsistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception cr Ty Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The original Cooperation and Operative Agreements to implement the Main-Pier, Talbert-Beach, and Oakview Redevelopment Project Areas were approved in June, 1983. As we move forward with the further implementation of these project areas it is now appropriate to amend these Agreements to represent additional loans to the Redevelopment Agency. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the following Agreements:_ AS CITY COUNCIL AND AGENCY: Amendment No. 1 to Operative Agreement No. 2_ for the implementation of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. This Amendment will facilitate the loan of.city funds to the Redevelopment Agency to complete the Mushroom Farm acquisitions as approved in the FY 85/86 Budget (loan amount to be $1,225,000). Amendment No. 1 to'Operative Agreement No. 1 for the implementation of the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area. This Agreement will approve a loan in the amount of $90,411 from the city to the Redevelopment Agency for acquisition of parcels and payment of relocation benefits within this project area ($209,589 which remains of an original $310,000 loan from the city to the Redevelopment Agency to facilitate an early construction'start of Emerald Cove will also be used.to conduct these acquisitions). Amendment No. 1 to Operative Agreement No. 3 to implement the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area. This Agreement will approve a loan of $510,000 from the city to the Redevelopment Agency to conduct property acquisitions and payment of relocation benefits for parcels within this project area. AS CITY COUNCIL: Approve a one (1) year extension to Use Permit No. 84-34 and Conditional Exception No. ,84-25 granted to Mr. Phil Zisakis on September 17, 1984. I RH 85-42(a) August 15, 1985 ge Two ANALYSIS: A. `lain-Pier Project Area: f; As the Redevelopment Agency's contribution toward the acquisition of land for the •Y__. Huntington Central Park/Mobile Home Relocation Park, it was proposed in the FY 85/86 Budget that the city loan the Redevelopment Agency'$1,225,000 of unappropriated general fund balance. This is included in the budget in both the budget message (page 2) and Revenue Detail; Other Funds; Redevelopment Agency -_ (Page.XVIU). The attached amendment to the standing Operative Agreement between the city and Redevelopment Agency will simply provide a vehicle through which this transfer of funds may take place, and through which the debt of the Agency for both principle and interest accruing may be documented. B. Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area: There remains two small privately owned parcels within the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area (Warner parcel and Aranda parcel, map attached). Agency staff reasonably believes that these parcels may be acquired on a willing seller basis at this time. To assure that these parcels do not impede build out of the project area in the manner which was.envisioned in.the redevelopment plan (and subsequently adopted zoning ordinances), it is recommended that the city loan the r. Agency sufficient funds to acquire these parcels at this time. The acquisition of these parcels, payment of relocation benefits to the current occupants, and administration costs are estimated at approximately $300,000. These parcels will be resold as soon as practical for incorporation in surrounding residential development. The Agency still has available $209,589 of the original $310,000 loaned to the Agency to facilitate the early construction start of Emerald Cove. These funds will no longer be required for this purpose. Therefore, the acquisitions above require a new loan from the city of $90,411. The attached Amendment No. 1 to Operative Agreement No. 1 for the implementation of the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area will provide the mechanism through which this additional debt of the Agency (including principle and interest) can be documented. C. Oakview Redevelopment Project Area: Agency staff reasonably believes that two parcels (the Robertson and Walker parcels, map attached) within the Oakview Project Area are available on a willing-seller basis at this time. To further implement the objectives of parcel consolidation of the Redevelopment Plan it is recommended that the city loan to the Redevelopment Agency sufficient funds to acquire these sites, pay the necessary relocation benefits to the current occupants, and pay administrative costs of this process. It is expected that the Robertson parcel and the commercially zoned portion of the Walker parcel will be sold, to be incorporated in a commercial/office project, to \ occur on the corner of Cypress and Beach Boulevard. It is anticipated that a loan of $510,000 will be sufficient to accomplish this acquisition. 30 RH 85-42(a) -August 15, 1985 ).ge Three The Agency will retain.the residentially zoned portion of the Walker. parcel which has a current appraised value of approximately$117,000 and will collect rent on-the .house estimated at $6004700 a month. Attached Amendment No. 1 to Operative Agreement No. 3 for the implementation of the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area will provide the legal mechanism through which the Agency debt (principle and interest) is documented. Staff has continued to work with Mr. Zisakis in an effort.to structure a development concept and financial plan that would induce Mr. Zisakis to accomplish his objectives to develop his current land holdings and also forward the Redevelopment .Agency's objectives for lot consolidation within the Project Area. Approval of Mr. Zisakis' request for an extension to Use Permit No. 84-34 and Conditional Exception No. 84-25 will facilitate the accomplishment of these objectives (Mr. Zisakis' request of September 9 is included as Attachment No. 8). FUNDING SOURCE: Unappropriated fund balance of general fund totaling $1,825,411. ALTERNATIVES: _._ Do not approve the attached Amendments to the Operative Agreements between the city and the Redevelopment Agency approving further advances of unencumbered balance. This will pre-empt acquisition of the parcels as described above. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Amendment No. 1 to Operative No. 2. 2. Amendment No. 1 to Operative No. 1. 3. Amendment No. 1 to Operative No. 3. 4. Mushroom Farm Site Map. 5. Warner/Aranda site map. 6. Robertson/Walker site map. 7. F IS. 8. Letter dated September 9, 1985 from Phil Zisakis. CWT/SVKsar 1241h ATTACHMENT "C" OPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 3 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT THE OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PLAN THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of • 1983 , by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a muniderpal corporation (herein "City") and the HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity authorized to transact business pursuant to the provisions of Section 33000 et. seq. of the California Health and Safety Code (herein "Agency") . W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS , pursuant to the attached Cooperative Agreement between the City and Agency dated 'S'Q#je- 2,p019R 3 , the City agrees to . provide to the Agency certain assistance and to otherwise cooperate with the Agency in carrying out the .implementation of the redevelopment -Mans; and WHEREAS , said assistance will include the City providing the Agency with both administrative and/or technical services, constructing required public improvements and facilities as appropriate and necessary and pro- viding funds to carry out these and other Agency activities; and WHEREAS , said services , improvements, facilities and funds will be specified in Operative Agreements which will also identify the terms under which the City will be reimbursed for the associated costs . NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Huntington Beach agrees to provide the following in support of the implementation of the Oakview Redevelopment Plan: Section 1: City shall provide the necessary staff support to carry out the planning , engineering and administrative activities re- quired to implement the Oakview Redevelopment Plan. Section 2 : City shall carry out the acquisition of parcels needed Cto provide the required public improvements and bring about the necessar_ C parcel consolidation as set forth in the development agreements for the area and convey said parcels to the Redevelopment Agency at fair-market value . Section 3 : City shall construct the required public improve- ments as set forth in the development agreements for the area. Section 4 : City shall provide relocation advisory services and assistance to tenants and property. owners displaced by the redevelop ment activities within the project area. Section 5 : City shall keep such accounting records as will en- able the City and Agency to determine the actual costs incurred and/ or monies advanced in association with pursuing the implementation of Oakview Redevelopment Plan. Section 6 : City shall be reimbursed for all costs incurred in carrying out this agreement with future Agency revenues and the Agency agrees to pay interest to the City at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum on the unpaid balance owed the City on the expenditures made. Section 7 : This document has been authorized to be executed by action taken by the Huntington Beach City Council on - up_ Lo 1983 , by .Resolution No. n B/, and by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment =-� Agency on SvN� gyp, 1983 , by Resolution No. 74 Section 8 : If any portion or section of this agreement is de- clared to be unconstitutional or violative of the California Community Redevelopment Law or other applicable laws of the State of California, then only that section or portion shall be stricken as agreed upon by both parties. Such determination of unconstitutionality or unfeasi- bility shall not affect the remainder of the agreement. IN WITNESS .WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed. this document as of the date first above written. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By . C Chairperson Mayor ATTEST: City/Agency Clerk INITIATED AND APPROVED: REV AN APPRO ED: • Director, Bu ness & Industrial Chie of Admi rative Serv' ces Enterprise APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVE AS TO FORM: G _ Cy t3Attorney/Agency Counsel Sp ci' A n Counsel APPROVED : City Administrat t7l C � MUSHROOM FARM SITE PHASE II r PHASE IiI PHASE E" LI Z PHASE I ui . a o ELLIS �•.3 f/I REQUES i FOR ITY COUNCIL ACTION i Date September 7, 1989 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Poe bers APPBOV BY-CITY COUNCIL W Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrato 9 19.....l. - Prepared-by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administra CI CLERK Subject: Amendments to Operative Agreements for Five Redev opm Pr(Zfck Lr as Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments:_LZ_ ` Statement of Issue: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach incurs debt in order to receive tax increment revenue. Periodically, it is necessary to document this debt for °a audit purposes. This document and the attached agreements, document the debt as of June 30, 1989. F-ecommended Action: Approve the amendments to the operative agreements for the Pain Pier, Talbert Beach, Oakview, Huntington Center and Yorktown/Lake project areas. Also, approve by Council action, the debt of the Low-Income Housing Fund. nalysis: The Redevelopment Agency has entered into operative agreements with the City for each of the five project areas. One purpose of these agreements is to periodically document the debt the Agency has incurred by receiving advances and loans from the City. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency last updated the operative agreements on P.°arch 20, 1989 which updated City/Agency activity through October 30, 1988. This action will update activity for the rest of fiscal year 1988/89. Debt is important to redevelopment agencies since tax increment can only be collected to the extent of an area's debt. It is, therefore, important to establish sufficient, proper debt of the Agency and to properly document same. Since the last update, the Agency incurred debt in a variety of ways: . Cash received from the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority - The Agency issued approximately $27 million in bonds in May of 1988. Approximately $12 million of the proceeds were held in "escrow" pending the annual review of tax revenues. An independent certified public accountant' made a study of the amount of previously escrowed funds that could be released due to assessed valuation increases within the project areas. The total release during the year was $6,374,767. The balance of the escrowed funds will be released in the next 2 years. • Cash Loans from the City's General Fund - In June, 1989, the City loaned the Agency $115,000 for professional services in the Main/Pier Project Area. • Indirect Cost of City's General Fund - The City conducted a cost allocation plan to determine the amount o ri salaes and overhead costs paid by the General Fund which are attrituable to Redevelopment activities. The California Health and Safety Code allows the City to charge the Agency for these costs. The amount charged to the Agency as debt for the year was $2,255,560. QUEST FOR COUNCIb ACTION Amendments to Opera..,re Agreements for Five Redevelop..• at Project Areas : Deferred Land Sales - During the year, the City sold land to the Agency totalling 29,.002,000 via'disposition and development and owner participation agreements in the .I\Jain/Pier project area. They are detailed below: Project Waterfront $ 22,400,000 Main Street Parking/Commercial 3,133,500 California Resorts 1,512,500 Town Square 1,956,000 Total $29.002,000 Interest on Prior Debt - The operative agreements allow the City to charge the gency 10 interest on the outstanding balance of all City debt. Advances from the Public Financing Authority bear interest at the rates specified in the loan agreements for each project area. During the year the total interest charged totalled $6,819,059. The interest charged for fiscal year 1988/89 is debt to the various funds as detailed below: General Fund $ 4,271,041 Parking Structure Fund 675,000 Gas Tax Fund 50,000 -Plater Fund 125,939 Drainage Fund 27,500 Public Financing Authority 1,4272727 Park Acquisition and Development 174,083 Deferred Development Fees (1983) 67,769 Total interest $ 6,819,059 Exhibit II shows the changes in the debt from the last amendment of each operative agreement. Exhibit III shows the outstanding debt summarized by category for each project area. From Outside Parties During the year the Agency assumed mortgages totalling 2,056,783 to acquire property in the Pain/Pier project area. The Agency also received or will receive $2,730,332 in loans from the Waterfront Project developer to relocate mobile home park residents. Public improvements costing $857,771 were made by N/R Huntington Partners resulting from an agreement with the agency for reilmbursement of the developer's cost of improvements. Also shown is the Emerald Cove Certificates of Participation issued by the Agency in 1984. These debts did not result from loans or advances from the City but is shown the exhibits to provide further audit documentation. Reductions of Debt - During the year $1,704,454 in payments were made by the Agency representing debt service payments on the bonds issued by the Agency in May of 1989. �,31 —QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Amendments to Operative Agreements for Five Redevelopment Project Areas Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternative Action: 1. . Do not approve the agreements 2. Approve the agreements with modifications Attachments: 1. Exhibit I - Summary of 7 Year's Financial Activity 2. 'Exhibit I - Changes in Debt for Each Project Area 3. Exhibit II - Outstanding Debt for Each Project Area 4. Amendments to Operative Agreements C 5331j REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 4, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and•City Council APPROVED BY CI'T�',COUNCIL Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator - _ 19_& Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrat CI. CLE Y; I Subject: Amendments to Operative Agreements for Five Re evelopme Pro' t Areas c� Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach incurs debt in order to receive tax increment revenue. This Agency is required to file an annual statement documenting this debt with the County. The statement of debt is also needed for audit purposes. This document and the attached agreements document the debt as of June 30, 1990. Recommended Action: Approve the amendments to the operative agreements for the Main/Pier, Talbert/Beach, Oakview, Huntington Center and Yorktown/Lake project areas. �1_ ' 2. Approve the debt of the Low-Income Housing Fund. (There is not a separate operative agreement of this fund, since it is related to the other project areas.) Analysis: The Redevelopment Agency has entered into operative agreements with the City for each of the five project areas. One purpose of these agreements is to periodically document the debt the Agency has incurred. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency last . updated the operative agreements on September 18, 1989 which updated City/Agency activity through June 30, 1989 for all of the project areas. This action will update activity through June 30, 1990. Debt is important to redevelopment agencies since tax increment can only be collected to the extent of a project area's debt. Once .total tax increment revenue exceeds.total debt, tax increment revenue is no longer received from the County. It is therefore important to establish and document.sufficient, proper debt of the Agency. We also use this documentation to file the annual debt statement with the County of Orange which allows the Agency to receive tax increment revenue. This statement must be filed with the County by September 30, 1990. Since the last update (June 30, 1989), the Agency increased and reduced debt in a variety of ways: Increases: Loans ($3.054.761) from -the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority to the Agency - These loans to project areas represent the final "escrow release" of bond proceeds from the 1988 Agency bond issue of $26.7 million. An independent certified public accountant's report was required to authorize the release of funds. The total release to the Agency during the year was $3,054,761. ,�q —FQUEST FOR COUNCIT. ACTION Amendments to Ope. .,ve Agreements for Five Redevelol nt Project Areas Indirect Cost of City's General Fund — The City conducted a cost—allocation plan to determine the amount of salaries and overhead costs paid by the General Fund which are attributable to Redevelopment activities (i.e., portions of the salaries of the City Administrator, Department Heads, other staff, equipment, office charges, etc.) . The California Health and Safety Code allows the City to charge the Agency certain of. =~ these costs. The amount chargedto the. Agency for the year.was $2,083,744. There ' -were no cash advances to the Agency from the General Fund for the third consecutive year. In fact, repayments were made ($500,000) to the General Fund. Advance from Capital Improvement Fund — The City's Capital Improvement Fund advanced $200,000 to the Yorktown/Lake project area for parking lot improvements at the Civic Center. This was authorized in the 1989/90 budget. Advance from Parking Structure Fund — During the year the City's Parking Structure Fund advanced $8,069,204 to the Main/Pier project area for the construction of the Main Street parking structure and design of the Parking Structure North of the Pier. The original funds came from the issuance of Certificates of Participation. Advance from Sewer Fund — The City's Sewer Fund advanced $175,000 to the Main/Pier project area for sewer improvements. This was authorized in the 1989/90 budget. Deferred Land Sales — During the year the City transferred two parcels in the Main/Pier Phase II area to the Redevelopment Agency in the Main/Pier project area. The value of the parcels totalled $2,267,000. Interest on Prior Debt — The operative agreements allow the City to charge the Agency 10% interest on the outstanding balance of all City debt. Advances from the Public Financing Authority bear interest at the rates specified in the loan agreements for each project area (approximately 7.8%). Advances of Federal funds bear no interest. During the year the total interest charged was $9,302,986. The interest charged by the various funds is detailed below: General Fund $ 5,052,700 Parking Structure Fund 1,549,402 Gas Tax Fund 55,000 Water Fund 143,920 Drainage Fund 39,980 Public Financing Authority 2,205,575 Sewer 23,657 Capital Improvement Fund 20,000 Park Acquisition and Development 217,752 Total Interest Charged 1989/90 $ 7.986 Decreases: The 1989/90 budget authorized repayments from tax increment revenue of the following amounts of prior advances representing interest and principal. Principal Interest Total General Fund _ Main/Pier $ 250,000 $ 250,000 ( Huntington Center $ 99,660 150,340 250,000 Park Acquisition & Development Fund ( LLATv Talbert/Beach 100,000 100,000 Total $ 9 $ 00.340 $600,000 -':QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Amendments to Opei ..ve Agreements for Five Redevelop nt Project Areas During the year, debt was also reduced by repayments of loans from the Public Financing Authority totalling $270,000 of principal and $2,208,876 of interest. During the year Mola Development Corporation paid the Agency $163,686' representing interest (at 11% per year) and principal on development-fees deferred in 1984 and .1985 during the construction of Charter Centre in the.Oakview.project area. : These deferred. fees represented debt of the Oakview project area to various funds of the City. During the year the Agency reduced prepaid debt on two mortgages related to land acquisitons by. $1,269,771. These were Main/Pier Phase II properties previously owned by Omahandro and Gosney. Exhibit I shows the outstanding debt summarized by category for each project area. Exhibit II shows the changes in the debt from the last amendment of each operative agreements. In previous years these amendments to operative agreements showed debt owed to the Huntington Beach Financing Authority. This year these amounts have been removed from these operative agreements since they are covered under separate loan agreements with the Agency. Alternative Action: 1. Do not approve the agreements. 2. Approve the agreements with modifications. Attachments: 1: Exhibit.I - Analysis of Indebtedness (Summary of Eight Years Activity) 2. Exhibit II - Changes in Debt for Each Project Area 3. Amendments to Operative Agreements Funding Source: Not applicable. 5381 j -3- C�.41 REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 21 , 1992 Submitted .0: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted.by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Admi nistr Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrates Subject: APPROVED BY COUNCI:.. OPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS 9— 19. Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exceptio 24a � CITY CLI;RI Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: . The Agency is required to file an annual statement with the County of Orange documenting the debt of the Agency. This statement of debt is.. also needed for—audit purposes. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve the following operative agreement amendments for fiscal year 1991 /92: Increased (Decreased) Project Area Debt To City Main/Pier Amendment Number 11 $ (14,480,079) Talbert/Beach Amendment Number 11 ( 1 ,135,390) Oakview Amendment Number 11 127,465 Yorktown/Lake Amendment Number 10 344,444 Huntington Center Amendment Number 10 ( 103,488) Total $ (15.247.048) ANALYSIS: On August 3, 1992, the Council approved a financial strategy plan including a debt repayment schedule. Staff is now presenting the fiscal year 1991/92 City/Agency debt analysis. In summary, the total debt to the City of Huntington Beach decreased by $15,247,047 and total Agency debt to all parties decreased by $13,098,525 for the year ending June 30, 1992. rn -o w rn N REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Operative Agreement Amendment ' Summary of Changes in Redevelopment Agency Debt to City • 1991/92 Total Debt to City 7/l/91 $ 90,950,179 Increases In Debt Direct Advances $ 639,880 Indirect Advances 171 ,902 Land Sales 3,064,730 Interest on Prior Debt 5,464,535 Total Increases $ 9,341 ,047 Decreases in Debt Repayments of Debt $ (23,250,518) Other Debt Reductions ( 1 ,337,577) Total Decreases $ (24,588,095) Total Debt to City 6/30/92 $ 75,703,131 Description of each of. these categories follows: 1 . Direct Advances - During the year the following advances were made with Council /Agency approval . to the Main/Pier Project Area. Parking Authority Advance/Beach Maintenance Facility $ 100,000 Advance to Pay Off -Omahandro Mortgage 397,500 Loan from Emerald Cove 42,380 Advance for Griffin Properties Attorney Costs 100,000 Total Advances $ 639.880 The advances originated from the following funds: General Fund $ 497,500 Emerald Cove 42,380 Parking Authority . 100,000 Total Advances $ 6 2. Interest - The City charged the Agency 8% interest during the year on all outstanding advances. Interest accrued to the following funds of the City: General Fund: Direct Advances $ 701 ,446 Indirect Advances 1 ,079,422 Land Sales 3,213,588 Sub-Total General Fund $ 4.9� to -2- VIMAnrrnT. IA7A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Operative Agreement Amendment., Other Funds: Gas Tax. Fund $ 52,272 Water Fund 134,501 Sewer Fund 21 ,772 , Drainage Fund 36,215 Park Acquisition and Development 198,312 Parking Authority 8,000 Capital Improvement Fund 19.008 Sub-Total Other Funds 470,080 Total All Funds $ 5,464.536 Interest was accrued to the following Project Areas: Main/Pier $ 4,789,987 Talbert/Beach r 214,803 Oakview 89,334 Yorktown/Lake 92.184 Total $ 5,464.536 3. Indirect Advances - The MSI report was used to compute the indirect costs incurred by the General Fund on behalf of the Agency. The Health and Safety Code allows these charges to the Agency. The previous_ approved Request for Council Action authorized crediting of certain amounts against this indirect advance. Below is an analysis of how the amount was computed: Total MSI Amount $ 466,488 Less Credits: Wind 'N Sea Toxic Cleanup ( 50,000) Office Rent Loss ( 48,000) H.B. Visitor/Convention Bureau (145,000) Appliances ( 1 ,587) General Plan Amendment ( 50,000) Total 1991/92 Indirect Charges $ 121 :901 The breakdown by Project Area is as follows: Main/Pier $ 29,055 Talbert/Beach 13,532 Oakview 64,875 Yorktown/Lake 10,110 Huntington Center 54.329 Total 1991/92 Indirect Charges $ 171 ,901 f -3- \Y!/ wnA nc CDT. 1 07A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Operative Agreement Amendment 4. Land Sales During the year the City sold two parcels to the Redevelopment Agency-which increased debt as shown below: Main/Pier Project Area: Third Block West $ -2,819,730 Yorktown/Lake Project Area: Pacific Coast Homes Agreement 245,000 Total Land Sales $ 3.064.730 5. Other Debt Reductions — The August 3, 1992 Request for Council Action authorized the elimination of the entire amount of Agency debt incurred from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds totalling $1 ,172,577. Waterfront lease payments totalling $165,000 for the year will be credited against Agency debt. Below is a summary of how the amounts reduced Project Area debt: Main/Pier $ 273,094 Talbert/Beach 1 ,048,845 Oakview 15.638 Total Debt Reduction $ 1 ,337,572 6.. Repayment of Debt Debt repayments originated from amounts in the C 1992/93 final budget, amounts authorized by Council during the fiscal year and amounts authorized by the August 3, 1992 Council action: Repayments of debt are summarized below: Budgeted Debt Repayment $ 972,000 From Emerald Cove Proceeds 42,380 Gri ffi n.Attorney — Costs 100,000 Parking Structure Land (Plus Interest) 4,094,858 Parking Structure — Building (Plus Interest) 18,040,780 Total Debt Repayment $23.250.518 All of the repayments were applied in accordance with. previous . Council direction. Interest and principal on direct advances were credited first. These operative agreements do not address changes in debt from non—City sources. The loan agreements from the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority, Emerald Cove Certificates of Participation (COP' s) , mortgages, and notes payable to outside parties are not included because each contains a separate agreement. However, the amounts are summarized in Exhibit I (Summary of Agency Debt at June 30, 1992) and Exhibit III (Summary of Changes in Outside Debt) . I �✓ l0 —4- 1.inAncrnT. in-7A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Operative Agreement Amendments j ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: l .- Approve the amendments with modifications -{ 2. Do not approve the. agreements. FUNDING SOURCE: Does not apply. ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Exhibit I - Summary of Agency Debt at June 30, 1992 2. -.,Exhibit II - Summary of Changes in City/Agency Debt 3. Exhibit III - Summary of Changes in Outside Debt C r -5- , i t EXHIBIT 1 SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT AT JUNE 30, 1992 TALBERT/ YORKTOWN HUNTINGTON PTION: MAIN/PIER- ; BEACH OAKVIEW LAKE CENTER TOTAL AL FUND CASH ADVANCES. 11,4.85,792 0 658675 251383 370,460 1.2,766,310 ED 'INTEREST ON CASH ADVANCES 1,902,96.2 .0 :54:941 202:495 29,637 2,190,035 CASH ADVANCES 13,388,754 0 713,616 453,878 400,097 14,956,345 ECT ADV 3890,620 19,857 2,312,060 277,128 796,811 7,296,476 ED INTEREST ON INDIRECT COSTS 1:285,595 1,047 762,844 91,149 118,367 2,259,002 INDIRECT COSTS 5,176,215 20,904 3,074,904 368,277 915,178 9,555,478 SALES 32589,147 0 0 245,000 0 32,834,147 IED INT LAND SALES 12:001,290 0 0 9,800 0 12,011,090 LAND SALES 44,590,437 0 0 254,800 0 44,845,237 GENERAL FUND 63,155,406 20,904 3,788,520 1,076,955 1,315,275 69,357,060 ---- ---- - - - - ----------------------------=- t FUNDS: i ADVANCES 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 ZEST ON SEWER ADVANCES 49,532 0 0 0 0 49,532 SEWER ADVANCES 224,532 0 0 0 0 224,532 1 DEF DEV FEES 0 37,888 0 0 0 37,888 SEWER DEF DEV FEES 0 31,504 0 0 0 31,504 L DEF DEV FEES 0 69,392 0 0 0 69,392 - L SEWER FUND 224,532 69,392 0 0 0 293,924 N IVANCES 250 000 0. 0 0 0 250,000 R� DRAINAGE ADVANCES 138,120 0 0 0 0 138,12.0 DRAINAGE ADVANCES 388,120 0 0 0 D 388,120 NAGE DEF DEV FEES 0 53,650 0 0 0 53,650 DRAINAGE DEF DEV FEES 0 47,131 0 0 0 47,131 AL DRAINAGE DEF DEV FEES 0 100,781 0 0 0 100,781 L DRAINAGE FUND 388,120 100,781 0 0 0 488,901 A AND D FUND LAND SALE 0 1,740,834 0 0 0 1,740,834 )N PARK A AND D LAND SALE 0 471,138 0 0 0 471,138 LAND SALE PARK A AND D 0 2,211,972 0 0 0 2,211,972 A AND D DEF DEV FEES . 0 247664 0 0 0 247,664 )N PARK A AND D DEF DEV FEES 0 217:57.1 0 0 0 217,571 L P A AND D DEF DEV FEES 0 465,235 0 0 0 465,235 L PARK A AND D FUND 0 2,677,207 0 0 0 2,677,207 R FUND ADVANCES 1,138,000 ! 0 0 0 0 1,138,000 ON WATER FUND ADVANCES 639,433 i 0 0 0 0 639,433 L WATER FUND ADVANCES 1,777,433 0 0 0 0 1,777,433 R FUND DEF DEV FEES 0 19,680 0 0 0 19,680 ON WATER FUND DEF DEV FEES 0 18,646 0 0 0 18,646 L u4TER FUND DEF DEV FEES 0 38,326 0 0 0 38,326 t tR FUND 1,777,433 38,326 0 0 0 1,815,759 TL--FUND ADVANCE 500,000 0 - 0 0 -- - 0- 500,000 GAS TAX FUND 205,672 0 0 0 0 205,672 �f GAS TAX FUND ADVANCE 705,672 0 0 0 0 705,672 A NG AUTH ADV 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 ON PARKING AUTH ADV 8,000 0 0 0 0 8,000 n 108.000 EXHIBIT II STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN CITY/AGENCY DEBT t FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1992 TALBERT/ YORKTOWN/ HUNTINGTON MAIN/PIER BEACH OAKVIEW LAKE CENTER TOTAL :REASES: 4ERAL FUND PRINCIPAL: kNS/CASH ADVANCES(DIRECT) 5.39,880 539,880 ):IRECT COSTS 29,.056 13,532 64;,875 10,110. 54,329 171,902 Q SALES 2,819,730 245,000 3,064,730 , fAL GENERAL FUND PRINCIPAL 3,388,666 13,532 64,875 255,110 54,329 3,776,512 ADVANCES ,;RKING AUTHORITY ADVANCE 100,000 100,000 TAL ALL ADVANCES 3,488,666 13,532 64,875 255,110 54,329 3,876,512 TEREST ON GENERAL FUND DEBT 4,552,672 1,047 278,228 70,326 92,183 4,994,456 1TEREST ON OTHER FUNDS DEBT 237,315 213,756 0 19,008 470,079 TAL ALL INTEREST 4,789,987 214,803 278,228 89,334 92,183 5,464,535 TAL ALL INCREASES IN CITY DEBT 81278,653 228,335 343,103 344,444 146,512 9,341,047 CREASES: ',NERAL FUND PRINCIPAL 3,133,500 264,375 0 0 204,040 3,601,915 "HER FUND PRINCIPAL DECREASES 14,927,118 1,048,845 15,638 15,991,601 iTAL PRINCIPAL DECREASES 18,060,618 1,313,220 15,638 0 204,040 19,593,516 NERAL FUND INTEREST DECREASES 1,476,358 50,505 200,000 0 45,960 1,772,823 -*HER.-.FUND INTEREST DECREASES 3,221,756 3,221,756 i1HfEREST DECREASES 4,698,114 50,505 200,000 0 45,960 4,994,579 ••TAC-ALL DECREASES 22,758,732 1,363,725 215,638 0 250,000 24,588,095 INCREASES (DECREASES) -14,480,079 -1,135,390 127,465 344,444 -103,488 -15,247,048 'ERATIVE AGREEMENT AMOUNT 80,839,240 4,042,002 3,661,055 989,119 1,418,763 90,950,179 JULY 1, 1991 'ERATIVE AGREEMENT AMOUNT, 66,359,161 2,906,612 3,788,520 1,333,563 1,315,275 75,703,131 JUNE30, 1992 =------------------------------------------------------------------- EXHIBIT III SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN DEBT TO OUTSIDE PARTIES JULY 1, 1991 TO JUNE 30, 1992 TALBERT/ YORKTOWN HUNTINGTON LOW INCOME ,SES IN DEBT: MAIN/PIER BEACH OAKVIEW LAKE . CENTER HOUSING TOTAL 'UBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 13,875,355 1899,775 3,454,400 0 11,581,950 30,811,480 :HERALD COVE COPS 5:740,000 5,740,000 C COAST HOMES 426,000 426,000 INCREASES 13,875,355 7,639,775 3,454,400 426,000 11,581,950 0 36,977,480 'IONS 1N DEBT TO OUTSIDE PARTIES: UBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 6,749,963 1,377,864 2,490,167 0 8.444,594 4,788,266 23,850.854 'AYABLE PACIFIC COAST HOMES 103,169 103,169 EMERALD COVE COPS 0 4,600,000 4600,000 I MAYER LOAN 5,660,368 5:660,368 1GES PAYABLE 614,600 614,600 fIONS IN OUTSIDE DEBT 13,024,931 5,977,864 2,490,167 103,169 8,444,594 4,788,266 34,828.991 NCREASES (DECREASES) 850,424 1,661,911 964,233 322,831 3.137,356 (4,788,266) 2,148,489 0 DE DEBT 7/1/91 13,822,831 5,977,864 2,490,167 0 8,444,594 4,788,266 35,523,722 DE DEBT 6/30/92 14,673,255 7,639,775 3,454,400 322,831 11,581,950 0 37,672,211 ATTACHM ENT 11; Land Advance QUestion. #2 �0 Council/Agency Meeting Held: i Deferred/Continued to: Approved Cl Conditionally Approved 0 Denied dtity Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: Department ID Number: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY C NCIL SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBER PREPARED BY: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrat SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Operative Agreements for 1994/ Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach incurs . 'debt in order to receive tax increment. revenue. The Agency is also required to file an `- annual statement to document this debt with the County of Orange Auditor/Controller by October 1, 1995. This statement is also needed for audit purposes as well as to keep the City Council informed of the changes in the debt owed the City by the Redevelopment Agency. Funding Source: Not Applicable Recommended Action: That the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve the following Operative Agreement Amendments for fiscal year 1994/95: Amendment Increased increased . Total Increased Number (Decreased)Debt to (Decreased)Debt (Decreased)Debt June 30th,1995 July 1 st to September 30th, 1995 Main/Pier 14 569.271 190,424 759,695 Talbert/Beach 14 158,393 52.798 211,190 Oakview 14 (285,309) 29,897 (255,412) Yorktown/Lake 13 56,763 18,921 75,684 Huntington Center 13 (849,888) 5,025,037 4,175,149 Total (350,770) 5,317,077 4,966,307 Alternative Action(s): (P I 1. Adopt the amendments with modifications 2. Do not adopt the agreements in which case the prior year debt statement would apply. REQUEST FOR ACTION -MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Analysis: The City Council/Redevelopment Agency has adopted operative agreements . since 1984. KPMG Peat Marwick's management letter for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 recommended that staff review the total debt of the Agency and determine the ' amount that is likely collectible. The changes in the Agency's debt is summarized below: October 1,1994 July 1,1995 to Total to June 30,1995 September 30,1995 Indirect Advances 197,489 65,830 263,318 Exchange Advances 5,000,000 5,000,000 Interest 751,742 251,248 1,002,989 Repayments (1,300,000) - (1,300.000) Total Changes (350,770) 5,317,077 4,966,306 Debt,Beginning of Period 84,206.138 Debt,End of Period 89,172,444 t_7 KPMG PEAT MARWICK'S MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENT -AGENCY DEBT The most recent management letter from the City's auditors (KPMG Peat Marwick) recommended that staff review the future tax increment projections for each project area. Staff is also recommending suspending the accrual of interest on all general land sales and indirect advances. Staff is also recommending that $55,385,251 be reclassified as possibly uncollectible. This amount represents the amount that the current debt of the Agency exceeds the expected future tax increment. This reclassification does not affect these operative agreements but will affect the City's financial statements. In order to protect the Agency's ability to collect future tax increment, the formal operative agreements will not be changed to reflect the uncollectible amounts. This will help protect the Agency's ability to collect all potential revenue. The uncollectible amounts are, by project area: Main/Pier $52,250,237 Talbert/Seach 0 Oakview 0 Yorktown/Lake 0 Huntington Center 0 Total $52,250,237. C � noesore nnr -2- 09/01/95 8:14 AM y r REQUEST FOR ACTION (MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: l l The following types of advances are estimated to be uncollectible: Deferred Land Sales $32,588,417 Interest on Deferred Land Sales 19,661,820 Total $52,250,237 This analysis assumed that there will be no combination of the existing redevelopment project areas. If the project areas are combined, staff will further analyze the debt and tax increment and possibly recommend additional adjustments to the uncollectible debt. INCREASES TO DEBT: Increases to debt are summarized as follows: Indirect.Advances $263,318 Accrued Interest 1,002,989 J General Fund Exchange (Hoover/Gothard) 5,000,000 $6,266,307 INDIRECT ADVANCES The City estimates indirect costs incurred on behalf of the Agency. All of the project areas except Main/Pier will incur this additional debt. The Health and Safety Code allows these amounts to show as advances to the Agency and count as debt this debt. The breakdown by project area is: October 1,1994 to June July 1,1995 to Total 30,1995 September 30, 1995 Main/Pier - - - Talbert/Beach 18,709 6,236 24,945 Oakview 89,691 29,897 119,588 Yorktown/Lake 13,977 4,659 18,636 Huntington Center 75,112 25,037 100,149 Total 197,489 65,830 263,318 Since Main/Pier's debt is substantially greater than future estimated tax increment, no additional general fund indirect advances will be charged to Main/Pier,pending a decision on the merger of the project areas. 5 � noorara nnr. -3- 09/01/95 8:14 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING,DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: HUNTINGTON CENTER/GENERAL FUND EXCHANGE ADVANCES- Staff estimates that the Hoover/Gothard connection will cost approximately $5,000,000. In order to fully capture the tax increment from Huntington Center, staff is recommending transferring the funding responsibility from the Huntington Center to the City (General Fund. Tax increment can be paid from Huntington Center to the General Fund to fund this project in the future. This will count as a debt of the Huntington Center project area. INTEREST ACCRUALS The City charged the Agency 6% for 1994/95 on all outstanding advances_with the exception of general fund land sales and indirect advances which have zero interest accrued. The breakdown by fund of accrued interest is: General Fund: October 1,1994 to July 1,1995 to Total June 30,1995 September 30, 1995 Direct.Advances 448,307 149,435. 597,742 Indirect Advances 0 0 0 i Land sale 0 0 Subtotal General Fund 448,307 149,435 597.742 Other Funds: Gas Tax Fund 37.210 12,403 49,614 Water Fund 87,760 29,253 117,013 Sewer Fund 9,534 3,178 12.712 Drainage Fund 18,054 6,018 24,073 Park Acquisition and Development Fund 132,130 44,043 176,173 Parking Authority 5,695 1,898 7,593 Capital Improvement Fund 13,551 4,517 18,068 Subtotal Other Funds 303,935 101,312 405.246 Total All Funds 752,243 250,747 1.002.989 The breakdown by project area is: October 1, 1994 to July 1,1995 to Total June 30, 1995 September 30, 1995 Main/Pier 569,271 190,424 759,695 Talbert/Beach 139,684 46,561 186,246 Oakview - - - C Yorktown/Lake 42,786 14,262 57.049 Huntington Center Total 751,742 251,248 1.002,989 nnorDrre nnrr, -4- 09/01/95 8:14 AN REQUEST FOR ACTION -_MEETING DATE: DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: j F REPAYMENTS The Agency repaid the City $1,300,000 to the General Fund as approved in the 1994/95 budget. REPAYMENTS October 1,1994 to July 1, 1995 to September 30. Total June 30,1995 1995 Main/Pier - - - Talbert/Beach - - Oakview 375,000 - 375,000 Yorktown/Lake - - - Huntington Center 925,000 - 925,000 Total 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 The repayments were credited against the following types of General Fund debt in accordance with previous Council direction. INTEREST ON INDIRECT ADVANCES $444,119. INDIRECT ADVANCES 855.882 TOTAL $1,300,000 Environmental Status: Attachment(s): 1. Exhibit I - Summary of All Agency Debt by Project Area 2. Exhibit II- Summary of Changes in Agency Debt by Project Area 3. Operative Agreement Amendments �r 5� .�nnrnelA r%ne� .5- 09/21/95 2:35 PM ATTACHMENT III: Advances from Special Funds , : Question #1 1.I T Y ur nuiv 1 1 1YV L VLY DL:n VLL CAPITAL 17' VEMENTS , DEPARTMEN'_ FUNCTION Fti. � PROGRAM NO. PI .M NAME Public Works Water Utility WATER UTILITY FUNDS 921 Water Utility a lraaaaaalraaliEaaal�alKaaa Projects BUDGET -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 87/88 FY 88/89 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- --------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1 . Peck Reservoir Repairs 4.00 . 000 1 , 000 , 000 1 . Complete repairs to reservoir & Seismic Upgrade and reinforce. structure to reduce damage during earth- quakes . 2a . Downtown Water 1 , 500 . 000 2a & b . Construct a major water Transmission Pipeline transmission . line in the downtown area . The project 2b Advance to the 1 , 000 , 000 is currently in design. Redevelopment Agency 10- for Water Transmission Pipeline related to Redevelopment in the Downtown area . 3 . Purchase Import Water 350 , 000 300 , 000 3 . Funds available in anticipa-0 Capacity Rights tion of import water capacity made available from City of Garden Grove : (West Orange County Water Board) . 4 , Cathodic Protection 30 , 000 4 . This study will analyze and . Study recommend a protection pro- gram to reduce .future. water leak incidents . The City currently has no corrosion protection on major lines . 5 . Pacific Coast Highway 250 , 000 S . Construct .or replace water Water Main Crossings ; mains in association with the' Lake St . to 9th St . Downtown Water Transmission (Redevelopment ) Pipeline project (no . 2 above to provide. the downtown redevelopment area with i adequate fire protection . uk;-44 Water Facility 250 , 000 6 . Relocate and upgrade OC-44 facility in conjunction with, r' �' 'in ra f`nnanli .{Al T)iRt4 i EPARZMErTr ��• FUNCTION FUND PROGRAM NO. PR("� NAME -- ------ -------- ----------=''. =---- ----------- -- ------ ublic works/ General Gov't. 800 ;,ewer . ewer Fund Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 89/90 FY 89/90 FY 90/91' FY 91/92 FY 92/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ----------------------- -------- ; ------------ ; -------- -------- 1. General Fund Transfer 111,600 ; 111,600 36,600 38,400 40,800 1. Transfer sewer funds to the General Fund to offset the cost of City engineering and inspection services.. 2. Orange County 10,000 10,000 ; 10,000 10,000 10,000 2. By agreement., pay O.C.S.D. Sanitation District ; for a portion of the capital Capital Agreement ; ; replacement costs foe county facilities within the city. 3. Equipment Replacement 60,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 3. Annual expenditure for the replacement of worn motors and pumps at the lift stations. 4. Manhole Restorations 110,000 110,000 ; 120,000 130,000 140,000 4. Continue an annual program of restoring manholes damaged by exposure to sewer gas. 5. Manhole Construction 10,000 ; 10,000 ; 10,000 10,000 10,000 5. Construct one new manhole per year to serve the main- line extensions required by -new construction. 6. Loan to Redevelopment 175,000 175,000 ; 6. Construct an 8 in. line to for Pierside Sewer Main ; ; connect pier redevelopment to the O.C.S.D. trunk in the beach parking lot.. (Loan from the Sewer Fund to the Redevelopment agency to be repaid in future years by tax increment revenue.) 7. Goldenwest Sewer Main 600,000 ; 600,000 7. Parallel an existing main from Ellis to north of Talbert. 8. Huntington Harbour 250,000 250,000 ; 8. Increase capacity of mains ' Facilities Upgrade and lift stations. S pc YJt Jn - .CAPITAL T 'OVEMENTS DEPARTME: FUNCTION. `D PROGRAM NO. tAM NAME ---------- -------- --------===----------- ----------- ------- Administration Development . FUNDING SOURCES. AS INDICATED 836 Redevelopment 31E 11E it 31E�iE 3iE 31E 1t 31E jIE��31E 31E lIE 31E 31t 11E 31t 3fE 31E 31E�31E��1t� BUDGET -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 8?/88 FY 68/89 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1 . Pier Improvements 500 , 000 1 , 000 , 000 1 , 800 , 000 1 . Refurbish Pier Structure . Funding: Excess P. F .C. funds ( $500 , 000 .in 87/88) and Coastal Conservancy grant/ loan (88/89 & 89/90) . 2 . Main Pier Water System 1 , 000 , 000 2 . Enlarge System for Increased Demand and Fire Flow Needs . Funding: Advance from the Water Fund. 3 . Downtown Property . 21500 , 000 750 , 000 750 , 000 750 , 000 3 . Acquire Property & Help Acquisition & Relocation Relocate Ex.i.sting Tenants . Funding : Sale of Lake Street property & Talbert/Beach property. 4 . Townsquare Improvements ?50 , 000 750 , 000 4 . Improvements in the Town ( 6th St . Realignment ) Square Area . Funding: Advance of H.C.D. Block Grant' Funds . Downtown Storm Drains 250 , 000 . 550 , 000 5 . Two Storm Drain Systems to Relieve Flooding in the Area . Funding : Advance from Drainag Fund. 6 . Huntington Center 75 , 000 6 . Provide an Additional traffic Through Lane Lane . 'Funding: Tax Incremen t 7 . Huntington Center Signal. 115 . 000 ? . Improve Traffic Circulation . Modifications Funding : Tax Increment- Huntington Center . 8 . Gothard Realignment 500 , 000 50 , 000 450 , 000 100 . 000 8 . Improve Traffic Circulation . I Funding : Tax Increment Huntington. Center . 1 EPARTMENT FUNCTION - -- -'+FUND — -- PROC tAN1 IJU."' °3 r PROgW NAME --------- _ -------- -----------i --- ----------- -- ----- 3s Tax Fund General Services GAS-TAX/AHFPi-L. %OCUTT 740 Trai. _ station ********************** Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECM4ENDATION ------------PROJECTED---------- PROTECT LIST FY 88/89 FY 88/89 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 FY 91/92 PROTECT. DESCRIPTION ----------------------- -------- ; ------------ ; -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- Magnolia O.C.U.T.T. 390,000 235,000 155,000 7. Refurbish select streets (Adams to Indianapolis) with Orange County Unified Transportation Trust funds on a 50/50 basis. This is the final year of this program. I. Warner Avenue P.A.U. 821,000 821,000 ; 2,081,000 8. Widen Warner Avenue with (Magnolia to P.C.H.) 86% participation in Federal Aid Urban funds. i �. Adams O.C.U.T.T. 560,000 200,000 360,000 9. Reconstruct a major street (Magnolia to Beach. ) on a 50/50 basis with City and I , OC[TTT funds. 3_0 Transfers of Gas Tax 1,0000,000 500,000 10. Funds will :be used for the d Monies to ; extension of Walnut Street as Redevelopment identified in the Redevelopment Project listing. L1. Street Maintenance 250,000 325,.000 350,000 375,000 11. Repair, slurry seal and/or cap 10 miles of city streets as part of an on-going maintenance program. 12. Traffic Signal Systems 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 12. Improve traffic flow by constructing a new signalized intersection by priority each Year. 13. A.H.F.P. Projects: 560,000 ; 5001000 500,000 500,000 13. Rehabilitate qualifying Garfield ( Magnolia to ; City streets with County AHFP DO 5 Channel) 88/89 funds on a 50/50 basis. AE;' ' O I-,ee nex' -age) 547 CAPITAL IMPR ITMENrS DEPARTMENT! FUNCTION FUM7, PROGRAM NO. PP'_ 4 NAME _ ---- - --------- - ------ Public Works/ General Gov't. 710 --General Capital Imprv. Facility Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR - Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 89/90 FY 89/90 FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------- -------- ------------------------------- T9 Loan to Redevelopment 200,000 200,000 19. Cost of parking improvements D Agency For Civic Center being constructed in conjunction Parking Lot Improvements with residential development Adjacent to the Civic Center. Funding: C.I.P: Fund advance to Redevelopment to be repaid by tax increment revenue in future years 20. Underground Fuel Tank 250,00.0 ; 250,000 ; 250,000 250,000 250,000 20. Establish a program to comply Management Program ; with 1988 EPA regulations. The ' Public Works Department proposes a 4 year program/$250k per year. ' Funding: C.I.P. Fund. 21. Facility Maintenance ; Projects 200,000 200,000 ; 200,000 200,000 200,000 21. Annual allocation for preven- tive maintenance projects at various City owned facilities. , Projects for 89/90 include carpet replacement $80,000; Ceiling re- placements $6;000; Metering conversion $36,000; Reroofing $84,000. Funding: C.I.P. Fund. 22. Parking Facility ; 22. Redesign & relandscape beach Improvements 410,000 410,000 ; parking lot between Lake St. and Beach Blvd. & build a new parking facility office at Huntington St. The project is needed to decrease maintenance and operational costs and ease traffic congestion at Lake Street thereby improving traffic flow and safety in the facility. Funding C.I.P. Fund, $200,000; Parking Authority Fund $210,000. - t, City of Huntington Beach INTER DEPARTMENT COMMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development FROM: Clay Martin, Director of Administrative Services ' DATE: October 23, 2002 er,Eprl vI�EsT�S SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Financial Issues Related to Emerald- You recently posed a series of questions related to historic financial transactions of the Redevelopment Agency. These questions focused. on Ocean View Estates, Emerald Cove'and miscellaneous accounting issues related'.to the booking of Redevelopment. Agency debts On September 12. 2002 I provided answers to your questions with the exception of all questions related to Ocean View Estates. Please find attached answers to your questions related to Ocean View Estates in the. order they were posed. Staff has spent the considerable time in the' past few weeks . .. ._ reconstructing all rents received at Ocean_View Estates since Its inception,.as well as a history of land acquisition,'mobile home park construction costs and the° sale.of Agency- owned mobile home coaches: �,- If you have any questions related to the information contained. herein, please do not hesitate to call me at extension 5236. Thank you. A:\transmitOVEanswersl 02302.doc I. OCEAN VIEW ESTATES 1. Provide the history of land acquisition and funding sources. The parcels acquired for the creation of Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park are summarized by Assessor Parcel Number and compiled in the attached spreadsheet. The spreadsheet also includes the available information on recording date, recording number, grant deed number (assigned by City Clerk), seller, cost of acquisition and known funding source. However, the spreadsheet does not contain costs associated with environmental issues such as, methane gas migration studies, and mitigation expenses. (SEE ATTACHMENTS 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 & 11) z What is the annual_ operating budget for OVE and where does net operating income go? The City Council set up an Enterprise Fund to account for OVE operating revenues and expenses in the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Budget. Rental income has been increasing and in FY2001/2002, the Enterprise Fund received approximately $237,000 in gross revenue. Beginning in August 2002, operating expenses were allocated to the Enterprise Fund. Future net operating income (after expenses attributed to deferred maintenance) will be allocated towards repayment of debt for land acquisition. Rental income history is provided in Executive Summary and b Fiscal Year for the period 1985 — 2002. P rY Y (SEE ATTACHMENT 3) 3, What income was generated through the rental of Agency-owned coaches prior to their sale? $39,210 in rental income was generated from agency-owned coaches (#20 & #44) prior to their sale. 4.. Where did the rental income from Agency-owned coaches go? All rents collected from tenants was received by the Treasurer's office, and subsequently deposited into the general rents account within the General Fund. 5. Where did sale proceeds from the 2000-01 sale of Agency-owned coaches go? Agency-owned coaches #15, #19, and #20 were sold in April and September of 2001. The net proceeds of $197,095 from the sale were received by the Treasurer's office and deposited into an account for the benefit of the OVE C Enterprise account when established. (SEE ATTACHMENT 4) r 6. An August 23, 1985 action identified$250,000 paid to the RDA by HB Company— was it paid and how was it spent? The $250,000 paid by the Huntington Beach Company to the City is-for the purpose of development of-a relocation park on the Oceanview Mushroom Fang property and to cover certain moving expenses. I could not find any specific reference to the method of payment or specific reference to how the money was disbursed. It is assumed that the money was applied to the development of Oceanview Estates. Mobilehome Park and to pay moving expenses of the remaining tenants of the Huntington Shores Mobilehome Park. (SEE ATTACHMENT 5) 7. A September 6, 1985 action allocated $560,000 to construct OVE(112 HCD/CDBG and % PADF9: was this the final actual cost and funding source? The construction of Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park Phase I by Parrott and Wright Construction Company was completed and a recommendation to accept the project was made by the Director of Public Works. The actual expenditures are Contract Amount $508,937.50 plus Construction Contingencies of •$58,876.91 for a total of $567,814.41. The stated funding source comes from HCD Community Block Grant Funds —Account #894846 -.$292,500.00 and PAD Park Acquisition and Development - Account #790766 - $292,500.00 for a total . of$585,000.00. (SEE ATTACHMENT 6) Additional construction of Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park Phase II by Caswell Construction Company was completed and a recommendation to accept the project was made by the Director of Public Works. The actual expenditures are Contract Amount $627,502.73 plus an increased contract amount of $90,000.00 for a total of$717,502.73. Additional change orders in the amount of $16,741.59 were issued for site grading, masonry wall, landscaping and fenceing not included in the contract work. The.final contract amount is $734,244.32 paid from account E-TM-ED-810-6-39-0 an advance from the Robert. Mayer Corporation. (SEE ATTACHMENT 7) i OVE Land Acquisition Summary : `y Assessor Acquired from Acquisition Date Recorded City Deed Remarks Parcel Record Owner Cost Acquired Document Number Number 111-101-01 SBE Negotiated I 23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-02 Giacalone/Cusolito $10 000 11/18/85 85-0462442 4702 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution 45559 9/3/85 111-101-03 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4648 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-04 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4648 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-05 SBE Negotiated ' 01/14/86 86-0016267 4648/4666 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5560 9/3/85 111-101-06 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-07 Griesch/Finn $12,000 03/01/86 86-0425089 4662 Budgeted Park AcquWtIon Funds/State Funds Resolution#5566 9/3/85 111-101-08 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-09 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-10 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-11 SBE Negotiated ` 102385 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-12 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-13 SBE Negotiated 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-14 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-15 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-16 SBE Negotiated ' .1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-17 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-18 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-19 SBE Negotiated 1023185 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-20 Stdpley/Jefger $13,000 10/16/85 85-0397242 4661 Budgeted Park A uisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5561 9/3/85 111-101-21 SBE Negotiated " 1023/85 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-22 SBE Negotiated 1023185 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-23 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-24 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-25 SBE Negotiated ' 1MUM 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-26 Hethcock $28 500 10/16/85 85-0397245 4660 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5564 913/85 111-101-27 SBE Negotiated 1023185 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-28 SBE Negotiated IW23/85 85-0407636 4659 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-29 Bie $13,000 03/01/86 86-0499721 4664 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5562 9/3/85 111-101-30 SBE Negotiated 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-31 Delaney $13,000 12/09J85 85-0493121 4663 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5563 9/3/85 111-101-32 SBE Negotiated " 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-33 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-34 SBE Negotiated " 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-35 Bruce 01/19/72 Bk9970P 597 111-101-36 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-37 SBE Negotiated 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-38 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-101-39 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-40 Griesch/Finn $12 000 03/01/86 86-0425089 4662 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds(Resolution#5566 W/8 111-101-41 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-42 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-43 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF 111-101-44 Hethcock $13,000 10/16/85 854)397245 4660 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds(Resolution#5564 9/3/85 111-102-01 SBE Negotiated 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-02 SBE Negotiated ' 1023/85 85-04076M 4653 State Fund 111-102-03 otiated 1023/85 85-0407836 465 Osaka Funds — 111-102-04 ' otlated 1023/85 85-0407636 7-Funds r OVE '_and Acquisition Summary 111-102-05 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-06 SBE Negotiated • 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds _ 111-102-07 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-08 SBE Negotiated • I M23185 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-09 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-10 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-11 SBE Negotiated ` 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-12 SBE Negotiated 10/23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-13 Blair $13,000 06/11/86 86-0244758 4811 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5565 9/3/85 111-102-14 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-15 SBE Negotiated 1O23/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-16 Griesch/Finn $12 000 03/01/86 86-0425089 4662 Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds Resolution#5566 9/3185 111-102-17 SBE Negotiated 1023185 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-18 SBE Nego0ated 1023/85 8540407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-19 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-20 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-21 SBE Negotiated 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-22 Bruce 01/19/72 Bk9970P 597 111-102-23 SBE Negotiated 1023185 8543407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-24 SBE Negotiated ` 1023/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-102-25 SBE Negotiated 1023185 85-0407636 4653 State Funds 111-071-26 Pariseau $200,549 03/10/89 89-0125105 5039 RCA(Consent Calendar)dated 2121/89,Budgeted Park Acquisition Funds/State Funds- CDBG 111-071-25 Bradley/Nelson Auto $998 000 06/12/86 86-0246215 4714 ?State reimbursement funds in 1985 111-071-27 Hudson $230 784 10/30/86 86-0518284 4753 ?State reimbursement funds in 1985 111-071-28 SBE 1223/85 85-0407636 4653 State Funds-L&WCF SBE Negotiated $1,500,000 0423/86 Under Phase I-Redev$1,225,000 FY85/86+Rev Sharing$300.000 FY84/85 as referenced - In letter Melvin Bowman to Norma Molen dated 1220/85 Land Costs $3 068,833 OVE Phase I onstruction Company $585,000 10/06/86 RCA(Item G8)dated 1016/86,re:Accept Construction and file Notice of Completion Original OVE Construction by Parrott and Wright Construction Company,$585,000(HCD CBDG $292 500 Acct#894846+PA&D$292 500 Acct#790766 OVE Phase 11 Caswell Construction $627 503 RCA Consent Calendar dated 221/89 CC-754 contract Increase $90,000 . RCA Otern EM 5/15/89 RCA(Item El 1)dated 20189 re:Approval of Contract with Florian Martinez Associates for Design cost add-on $76 460 Design of OVE MHP Expansion 24 spaces,$76,460,from Robert Mayer Corporation RCA(ttem E9)dated 10/16/89 re:Amendment to OVE Design Contract,added not to exceed change orders 6 742 $24 900 from Acct#E-TM-ED-810-6-39-00 $810 704 0220/90 Acct#E-TM-ED-810-0-39-0 Advance from Robert Mayer Corporation Improvement Costs $1 395 704 Land+Improvements, $4 464,537 ram, _ r, Oceanview Estates Relocation Costs IWA RDA SALE Mw OVE FORMER RELOCATION RDA COACH RDA COACH RDA GAP DATE PRICE SALE OWNER SPACE LAST TITLE FIRST SPOUSE SPACE COSTS COACH SIN COSTS ADD-ONS PAYMENT PAID DATE NAME 3 Carlin Mr. Phil D 314 $8.486.09) S 4572-0420 AY1BY ($23,963.00) ($16,025.97) $34,93528) 2119/1997 7 Parker Mr. Stan Helen D-306 $10.983.10) S 2073-0217-AY/BY ($48,641.35) ($3,201.00) 11 Mr.B Mrs. Janes P-721 $10,228.03 2073.0215-AY/BY $28,292.1 $18,589.94 12 Perez W. Rose D309 6.31525) ($26,343.43 ($16,915.69) 15 Model Morns 4572-0S72-AY/BY ($34220.4 $64,830.00 4r232001 UnamBw 18 Nf duavich- Ms. Dan 15,309.45) S 4572445"Y/BY ($25,595.00) ($14,538.15) 19 wdson Mr.d Mrs. Dale Debra D-M 222D4.55) W YWV781201ASC Hared(mm DdOumod ($96.471.00) VIOM995 S68,465A0 4n7MM Madas 20 Skyline 2372-0451-AY/BY 27,000.OD .$65 800A0 9 UMM Ermlen 22 Hendrix Mr.8 Mrs. Tad Befty I D•312 $10 024.74) SkVGw 45724)440-AY/BY $24,750.00 13,110.89) $44 309.87) 7/1511998 24 Icaffins Mr.&Mta ELqWw P-719 a6.589.08 4S72-0447-AY/8Y $17 045.0D $8,922.18) 26 Kolshnik Mr.R Mrs. Donald Barbara D-325 $14,467.32 45724M49-AY/BY A00.00 17,136.47) 28 Supe Ms MWP 0-310 10,31129) SkyHna 0071-0617-AY/BY ($19,555.00) ($18.337.70) ($45,745.88d2r25/1998 29 Ms D•304 8,671.04) 45724441-AY/BY ($22,065A0) ($8,914.22) 30 Gadds Ms. D-305 $14,815.83) S 2372.04S0-AY/BY ($28194.00 $15,826.72 31 F P-7205$5d.193.18) 2372-0478-AY/BY $21,855.00 ($23,516.24) ($68,615.34) $45064A7 32/1999 Conger 33 Franke Mr. Wdifam D-317S )ne 23724"5-AY/BY $22 840.00 ($13,033.39) 34 Brookc Ms. Grace D-318S 4572-0448-AY/BY ($25,715.00 $13,173.8 ($52 617.95) 35 De'W' Mr.3Mrs. John Card D-OQ 23724)"4-AY/BY ($31,988.00 $14,888.09) 36 Claude Ms. E D-301 S im4572-042MY/BY 22,325.00 $14.591.56 ($35,339.80)38 Sbmn Ids. Pebk9a D-32B 0671-0619-AY/BY - $17,625.00 $14,439.76) 39 Brennen Mr. Dan D-327 $9200AD 0671-0618-AYISY ($26,637.14 ($7 730.25) i5w.00 Sawaw 40 FaUmnstein Ms. Pat 0-315 10,3922 23724)"6-AY/BY $30.231.00 ($10,849.31) $44,545.11) 41 Kroesch w LIM% - D-322 $12435.63 S 23724465-AY/BY - $27AS7.00 $11,845.95) 42 Stone Mr.6Mm P-718 $11.991.68 S 4572-0418J1Y/BY $19.351.0.) $8,06D.48 534743.89 8/8/1896 43 Fadar Mr.8 Mxs. Sara D-321 S10,63721 2073 OQ20 AY/BY ($38,215 ($15,786.92) 44 Jones Mt.8 Mrs Herdd t4ene0e D 318 $12,748. S 2372-0443 AY/8Y (530,388.6D 519,158941 $91.018.OD 1227/1995 $47 00 ?HBH999 Sween Totals ($253,629.62) ($668,597.56) ($318,395.70) ($548,342.12) $289,949.07 Net Cost ($2,076,914.07) I Executive Summary LOVE Rent History 1985-2002 Year Driftwood Life Estates Market Year Totals FY85-86 $0 $1,760 $0 $1,760 FY86-87 $0 $21,285 $0 $21,285 FY87-88 $0 $23,265 $0 $23,265 FY88-89 $0 25,2451 0 $25,245 FY89-90 $0 $27,225 $0 $27,225 FY90-91 $0 $29,205 $0 $29,205 FY91-92 $56,870 $31,202 $0 $88,072 FY92-93 $66,087 $33,391 $0 $99,478 FY93-94 $90,024 $45,221 $0 $135,245 FY94-95 $76,736 $38,896 $0 $115,632 FY95-96 $75,180 $41,349 $0 $116,529 FY96-97 $77,531 $43,934 $3,465 $124,930 FY97-98 $68,992 $46,464 $40,544 $156,000 FY98-99 $46,990 $43,859 $55,430 $146,279 FY99-00 $51,137 $41,429 $58,001 $150,567 FY00-01 $48,960 $44,583 $104,329 $197,872 FY01-02 $47,460 $47,709 $142,031 $237,200 t. Totals $705,9671 $586,022 $403.800 $1,695,789 Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park [Space No. NAMELAST Jul-85 Aug-85 Sep-85 Oct-85 Nov-85 Dec-85 Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 Life Estates F 1 Brake i ti it As 3� t4 �'y[YL 7sr Y sd� r�sK 3 j � a a >E4 rd>O�} i 7 : �+ . p/a _ �-Na � -nla �..-.�.v Na .._:�. z�n/a .__t.:. .,�nj� s�',;1�/a ..�� N.. 4.;�:.. [1/6 r�.f__�-Ma -� 160 Na $ V n F L--- i� ,. 'l .-G Y- r 1 V"'r - r - F,:�{..H'�' s .s- G t ... 2 Canaletd r-: �-.,,.Na ,.� :` n/a �^`'�,'«#�l� N - �� ri/a N�.,�, 5� �=►i�a . $160 4 Foltz rl/a "� nha s UY Na +} h/a 5 .. a r K Y w r n: , r•r . ! . x... �. .. Nar : .w..: Na tt .n%a � ,t: J1/d : . ,r ;=r>. ri/a $160 s 6 Swanson . _. . . ... � ._. . $160 8 HOss 4. k .. i 7 Na 3 ^t T -L - r 7 r I�' SLk7 t ? x 's' f N! .. . ... r 9.;, :n!a ;.r-rl/a r .,+..:n/as>,.:(1NaT.tU j1l� - flNa t;�k, :'►11a Na $160 9 Nocella -I -[S -r -r-� � Ab1y c , -.54 0 3 i}•, rs•. ,,��,i:.r•- c_�� c-.7_ t Na � Na z:., "Ji/a , : n[a '.' � :,:n/a �'- 11Na :� ..�,,.� a '�' r�.1'1!A ,�_�,r�'ll8 r �`Na $160 :n1a 10 Bandel k2 Na '6.:. .. # a Gv �ayr[5 t 37/1 sk t i rsr t a ; Y i , r nfi >_.:.. ...:.r�(. �A/a , .. .�,,...., n!a _,' r a.,>_n!a �....-..y=.Na . .=,r..�,..`h� �Y� +]fa ��:- �,�.,,� �..:�;Na N ,..�� >M/a $160 1 _h` [. -Y -;. - _ ,p 4,1:?„ T '-3'[a rPi� �^ y Yy� - f -r•yT-^' - ,S[} +s} " w; - 13 VanBavel a r . ,.,..1.. 7..rr� Y zt nfa r " Na Na i 4.5 tit, N $ 'S a n. �., a a �_, tF - - s :,.: .•;,,' k Y=: s d -S. "4H'F Y N# �. < "'� t, "Yr- -:fin _p 14 Hayes r,,x;G a :?v 3r:•.kanl� ._} x" al a iH:x. §f1�a�.f3 4 ftflla x`h n��.; i,.a 4 ,t+an�11(�t z 'z ' � �w�1r.>.fl/8 1'uj $160 a a � ?'r: 'sL Y ��`s Rya t� ri., r s Y, 16 Wabbel 4 tUa Div +k.. d r ,=_ ,>. Jlja rc1<nYa a �;# 71Fd .s. x_� £ys, ,. t ..sx ..3 2_ s _. f1/8 txt�a $160 -,y 17 Morton =�z t $160 .,mod,,.:. ,.`n/a . '��:�:Ma��' . ,1.�Na .,�';.. a •��> nla w�. ,.�4�.� FY85/86 $1,760 vQ Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST Fsp7aceNo. NAME Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-88 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-8T May-87 Jun-87 Life Estates 1 Brake $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 2 Canalettl $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 4 Foltz $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 . 6 Swanson $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 8 Hoss $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 9 Nocella $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 10 Bandel $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 13 Vanl3avel $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 14 Hayes $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 16 Wabbel $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $175 17 Morton $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $1LOL $175 FY86/87 $21.285 Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST- Space No. NAME JUJ-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 Feb488 Mar-88 Apr-887May-88 Jun-88 Life Estates 1 Brake $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 2 Canaletti $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 4 Foltz $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 6 Swanson $175 $175 $176 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 8 Hoss $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 9 Nocella $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 10 Bandel $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 13 VanBavel $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 14 Hayes $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 16 Wabbel $175 $.175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 17 Morton 1 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $175 $190 FY87/88 $23,265 •1 Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST Space Mo. I NAME Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 Zr-89'TMay-89 Jun-89 Life Estates 1 113rake $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 2 Canaleti $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 4 Foltz $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 6 Swanson $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 8 Hoss $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 9 Nocella $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 10 Bandel $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 13 VanBavel $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 14 Hayes $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 16 Wabbel $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $196 $196 $205 17 Morton $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $190 $205 FY86/89 $25.245 v Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST Space No. I NAME 1 Jul-89 I Aug-89 1 Sep-89 1 Oct-89 I Nov-89 I Dec-89 I Jan-90 I Feb-90 I Mar-90 I Apr-90 May-90 I Jun-90 Driftwood 3 Carlin 3Nrx.;Na Free Free Free Free -Free Free Free Free Free Free Tree 7 Parker "r 'nla *Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree TreeTreeTree 11 Armstrong '' = ` ='ails 'Free `Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree *Free Tree Tree Tree 12 Perez -- ;=- :nla Tree 'Free `Free Tree `Free `Free Tree Tree *Free Tree *Free 18 Marinovich ``:'''Y=`nee Tree Tree Tree *Free Tree Tree 'Free `Free Tree 'Free Tree 19 Wilson -���z�.-:_�:�.�11a Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free 22 Hendrix = =n[a 'Free TreeTree *Free' TreeTree 'Free TreeTreeTreeTree24 Collins *Free `Free `Free Tree Tree Tree *Free *Free Tree Tree Tree 26 Kolshnik 'Free Tree Tree Tree 'Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree 28 Stipe =1' rh/a 'Free 'Free *Free Tree `Free 'Free Tree Tree Tree Tree `Free 29 Hodge ' ^-->`<t�/a Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree `Free Tree *Free Tree Tree Tree 30 Gaddis _ „-.;-nia Free Free `Free Free - Free Free Free Free Free Free Free 31 Ford/Malone ;;_`; :Na 'Free 'Free Tree Tree Tree 'Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree 33 Franke =.r• js'kn/ 'Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree 'Free `Free Tree Tree Tree 34 Brooks >w%`rila `Free 'Free Tree Tree `Free Tree *Free Tree `Free `Free Tree 35 Dellsite `n._ ; rFNa Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree 36 ClaudeR Tree Free Free Free Free Free Free. Free Free Free Free 38 Simon •:F;�>:-: =�ri/a Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free 39 Brennan MOM r 4 .y'^Na 'Free Tree 'Free Tree `Free Tree Tree Tree Tree TreeTree 40 Falkenstein ; ;r:;nli# *Free Tree Tree, Tree Tree Tree Tree '*Free Tree `Free Tree xw. r;,:bay; , 41 Kroesch ;• R!g/a 'Free Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree *Free *Free *Free Tree 43 Fader rf iya 'Free Tree 'Free `Free Tree Tree LTree Tree ;Free Tree Tree 44 Jones Free Treel Free I Free I Free Free Free Free Free . Free Free FY89/90 $0 Life Estates 1 Brake $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 2 Canalettl $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $265 $205 $205 $220 4 Foltz $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 6 Swanson $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 8 Hoss $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 9 Nocella $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 10 Bandel $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 13 VanBavel $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 14 Ha es $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 C" Ocea*ew Estates Mobilehome Park 16 lWabbel 1 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 17 Morton $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $205 $220 FY89/90 $27.225 Market '5++:� a{;.. "! '•9�•.:i' 'S�.7�s ,r• �''.,�- -:l•�:n.:i..�iz�•-"4U- •-�' .Cti=,; +'�:.,• aa,•.•;..:.y :An:� .,�y:� 15 en Y_ /� Flf�au'�_ Sant: ra.. Ott v' 1C �, Flt: 0 V v xYLt {, V '.�fnt �� want r;��� .� ; act aunt r r 'Vaoat� y .ac_arlt 1 20pp�� .±yam' ��jMA ant-.„w.•M`'-7i �. ,,s_r �Fl.W f),=j �/a .WN FY89/90 $0 Total FY89/90 $27,225 Tree indicates a rent free status for two-years per agreement t� OUI&ome park tRar-gi 4Pr-91 MaY-91 Jun 91 view estates Jan-s� fey 9 oceall NOv g0 Dec-90 .Free i pct-90 *Free `Free *Free Jus- pug.90 Sep 90 Free Free *Free 'Free 90 * *Free *Free NAM *Free • *Free - *Free 'Free • [y0- -Free *Free Free ace �� Free -Free *Free 'Free "Free *Free •free *Free Driftwood * Free -Free Free *Free *Free 'Flee Free 'Free Free * Free "Free *Free Fr *Free * * ` `Free CarUn *Free *Free 'Free *Free 3 *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free *free *Free *Free -Free Parker *Free *Free *Free *Free 'Free Free Free Free Free 'Fran 'Free 7 tro "Free •free *Free � • *Free ti 11 Arms *Ftee *Free F •free Free - *Free *Free *Ftee 12 Peres Ftee 'Free *Free *Free Free - *Free - *Free * *Free Free Free Free "Free *free *Free Ma(movich *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free 18 *Free *Free *Free *FT 'Free *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free 19 Wilson -Free *Free *Free *Free *Free 'Free *Free F{endrtx *Free *Free "Free 'Free *Free 22 *Free *Free *Free -Free *free *Free Collins *Free *Frey *Free *free -Frey `Free 24 •Frea "Free •Free `Free -free "Free 'Free *Fr Koishnik -Free *Free *Free *Free 26 `Free *Free *free -Free 'Free - *Free *Free *Free Free - •Free 28 SO *free *Free Free -Free Free .Free Free *Free Free -Free *Free � Kod a *Free -Free *Free 'Free *Free *Free 2g -Free *Free *Free *Free •pree *Free Gaddis Free Free a Fr Free Free 30 Nlaton `Free • Free * Free * re e * tee 31 Ford! a Free `Free *Free `Free *Free *Fre -Free *Free *Frea *Free *Free Free Free Fr 33 Franke *Free *Free - -Free * *Free * 'Free *Free -Free 'Free •Ftee • *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free 34 arooks *Free *Free -Free *Free *Free *Ftee 'Free 'Free «Free *Free *Free *Free *Free 35 Dellsite *Free «Free *Free `Free 'Free *Free *Free *Free `Free *Free *Free +Free 36 Claude -Ftee *Free *Free *Free *Free *Free Simon -Free 'Free -Ffee Free *Free *Free *Free 38 *Free *free •Free - •Ffee 'Free 13renn3n *Free *Free *Free -Free *Free 39 *Free *Free `Free -Free $0 *Free *Free *Free 40 Falkenstein -Free tee PY9a91 *Free -Free •Ftee *Free 41 Kroesch -Free *Free 43 Fader *Free `Free $235 $220 $220 $235 44 Jones $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $ $235 a $22 $220 $235 22a $220 $220 $22 $ $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $235 Life F stateS $220 $220 $220 $220 $22 $220 $220 $220 $220 $235 $2'LO $220 $220 $220 0 $220 $220 $220 1 Brake $220 $220 $220 $221 $220 $220$ $ 0 $ $220 220 $235 Canalettt $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $235 2 22220 $ $220 220 f oltz $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $�0 $220 0 $220 $ $235 4 Swanson $220 %220 $220 $220 $�' $220 $220 6 $220 $ $220 $ $220 $220 $220 $220 8 HOs $220 $220 Nocella $220 $2L0 $220 $220 $220 g $220 $220 $22Q 10 8andel $220 $220 �. 13 van el $220 $220 14 Hayes L Ocea*ew Estates Mobilehome Park 16 lWabbel 1 $220 $220 . $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $235 17 Morton $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $235 FY90/91 $29,205 Market _ ?:••15 en;a,5*•R R,r ` '' ".` " ' f " �: `�•.o - r t' ::'t- - Yt+.a�-at ... � -�Vat f xY- V r 4A, "xr3 R* 20 `ne e iI>. , aV,n n��._•:V aasx>-r.�.rt R i r:.ey .d�ama` � YIaa'vCaa►►itt FY90/91 $0 Total FY90/91 $29,205 -Free indicates a rent free status for two years per agreement Pi `indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed �Z Oceanview Estates Mobilehome ParkLAST - Space No. I NAME I Jul-91 I Aug-91 I Sep-91 I Oct-91 I Nov-91 I Dec-91 I Jan-92 I Feb-92 I Mar-92 I Apr-92 I May-92 I Jun-92 Driftwood 3 Carlin 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235; 7 Parker 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 11 Armstrong 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235„ 12 Perez *Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 18 Bolton *Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 19 Wilson 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 22 Hendrix 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 24 Collins 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 ' 26 Kolshnik Tree $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 28 Stipe Tree $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235' 29 Hodge 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235. 30 Gaddis 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 31 Ford/Malone Tree $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235+ 33 Franke 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 34 Brooks 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 . 35 Dellsite *Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 36 Claude 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 . $235 $235 38 Simon 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 , 39 Brennan *Free a S� o R7 *+�'�N I �rI4: Y ' �Io R y '" y Y g; 'C M.. ; *"Mb f r.Nb P *' 2 h .: _y«r NO IN z.. aQ o.:. _ ��. t+ISs P.,ay Na Pa Fto.Pam 40 Falkenstein 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 41 Kroesch `Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 43 Fader 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 44 Jones 'Free $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 FY91/92 $56.870 Life Estates 1 Brake $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 2 Canalettl $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 4 Foltz $235 035 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 6 Swanson $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 8 Hoss $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235,. $235 $252 9 Nocella $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 10 Bandel $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 13 VanBavel $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 14 Ha es $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 a� Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park 16 lWabbel 1 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $252 17 IMorton 1 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 $235 .$235 $252 FY91/92 $31,202 Market _ .�S✓7 2 :Pti:.+X� - .--f�:. _ F':T ii"- a�._..�{' (,ir- '4• i"�i - :tCl. - )Ne J_ ij F � � r} 15 eP ?r �caht V" _ A._ x � f)t _Girt R tint. :1� cnt` \�19�f#t" a�ht ���teant 1acni -� acn2 4'` �IaC�n� ;Y_."' 8� _•. _, x"�-ys fi V E .:] 1C � ; t;yy„y+6 � _ .. a .�� ir'F �G� �Y 20 Pen s _ nt -:1!$S�F�tvapnt }rM" 1tnt ,1fa� , �la4aM /a�dnt aCallit E (aean.hs?1/atxtYBl FY91192 $0 Total FY91/92 $88,072 indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LjkST S ace No. NAME Jul-92 Aug-92 Sep-9� Oct-92 Nov-92 Dec-92 Jan-93 Feb-93 Mar-83 Apr-93 May-93 Jun-93 Driftwood 3 Carlin $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252' 7 Parker $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 11 Armstrong $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 12 Perez $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 , 18 Bolton $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 19 Wilson $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 22 Hendrix $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 . $252 24 Collins $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 26 Kolshnik $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252' 28 Stipe $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 ' $252= 29 Hodge $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252: 30 Gaddis $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252- 31 Ford/Malone $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 33 Franke $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 b� v a $ 252 y _ nha •,n/a *nla n/a _., $252. 34. Brooks $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 . $252 $252 35 Dellsite $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 36 Claude $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 38 Simon $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 39 Brennan a' a Pa =r*Flo 43a �""4N9 Ba Y 'zl±lo � o_ Pa M:IJo Pa F_ t N4 P�1 'Kl�a f?aj r!N y`N •9 P ._ NaPay 40 Falkenstein 1 $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 41 Kroesch $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 43 Fader $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 '$252 $252 44 Jones $235 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 FY92/93 $66,087 Life Estates 1 Brake $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 2 Canaletti $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 4 Foltz $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 6 Swanson $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 8 Hoss $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 9 Nocella $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 10 Bandel $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 13 VanBavel $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 04 Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park 14 Hayes 1 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 16 Wabbel 1 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 17 Morton 1 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $252 $269 FY92/93 $33,391 Market �-Ft =.y3' -....yF- y w -. Y - sg i�� a - f - . 15 Peti � � F<`�<w,wa�i'dtlf*3'..7Z..���X ;�ram+���Elt?-- �_as�a0a!]t�r�_�'��8lglt ,�.sr..V��A>t%�r.,,tF'�a�[� , �.s"...�1[a9arE a' �:t��pll��..-�_�c�*��aG�t�t':;..xy�Hr�d�llt 's-���a40n�. 20n s`MEMO' �yrj. �. ; Y ��•:- �... .. _-�Vagarat �c �_.. ...�;� �. .. _ ►� .��.��:, .�4ar_►1 r��� at�pt .-. � ..ar�nt=_.��,.. aptt =.�;.want�� act� Ytcar�, :. aca!rt_ .�[�cai►t Im FY92/93 $0 Total FY92/93 $99.478 '!-'-"."gin indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed N /r ppyy pp {{�.� 4�.ff yy {� WNNNN N _v ��pNjj O OI 09Ise . V W A W O t0 m Ol A N ... �y A W O i0 Oo N 41 O fp pD Oi A N fD OD N + V W • -" O 13 p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p� p� N��j p� p� p� fp�� cn 1:J tO t0 iD {O m tD t0 10 tD t0 10 10 9 fD t0 (D i0 10 f0 t0 I�h f��" :• N 44 in (D ?."1111111 Oil I I I III I I I I 1 CD 5tjv}, d d 111alIis Ill, 1111am119010 Evil Ili inmiII OY ✓,�Y �p (p y� (p (� (p �p « (q �p « q (� (� �CQ .. / iYi1 FYT Ll I 11.1 1 1 fD OD m pN� !p�.pNp p�p mN mN mN p�p pNp nr. 1-vies Oo 61 OD m C� O� Oo CD G7 Oceanva Estates Mobilehome Park FY9WW so FY93194 TOW $135.245 FY93/94 reflects a 15 month fiscal year --,R�aRaY':'indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed ,\ Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park Space No. NAME Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 Driftwood 3 Carlin $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 7 Parker $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 11 Armstrong $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 " 12 Perez $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 18 Bolton $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $3081 19 Wilson $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 =�v iv fMkt .s -„4=-NIkt 22 Hendrix $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 , 24 Collins $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 26 Kolshnik $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 28 Stipe $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 29 Hodge $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308. 30 Gaddis $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 31 Ford/Malone $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 33 Boyer $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 34 Brooks $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 088 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308� 35 Dellsite $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 36 Claude $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308. 38 Simon $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 _ x 39 Brennan "Et NP Ray.Y �!�11p;Aa . .•1u4"Pa .'__�•?NQ Aay .r 'No•Pa" y r`l aPa s�}v ; 2 H. _- _No P.a r Pa 40 Falkenstein $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 41 Kroesch $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 43 Fader $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 44 Jones $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 FY94/9.5 $76,736 Life Estates 1 Brake $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 2 Canaletti $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 4 Foltz $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 -$288 $308 $308 $308 $308 6 Swanson $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 8 lHoss $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 9 Nocella $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 10 Bandel $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 13 VanBavel $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 14 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 " J . --� Oceanftw Estates Mobilehome Park 18 lWabbel 1 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $308 17 IMorton 1 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $288 $308 $308 $308 $30811 FY94/95 $38.896 Market _x..n: '�.i.- -T. 5..:•_' -f -"-s, _ ,r`:,..�lc,.s7- ."�y_ ��•. -x =7' ao'-.s� -':x .r- 15 en �G s�. .,; 1/ao�Rt Y'rt �/asant :... a4eESt .� FIt ^r Yacant ��4 /aca9t 1[a4�dt�t �r laoatlt € 1faUR �1%ac�nt ��s'�laCant '� ;1%aGarzt: Yaoant 19 ;eilaS�Rtlstit _ �cahf;r -�:k` H,qz .. 1-Y 2t - _ ,.; ,. j :44'. f f:.�.M1 .ltt:e_ - �_ i ...� .. ;.yam-,:A' ? '•>.75RLE: 5 r. ' - ,., !, rr :, _;1 1. s5;'ut _ . ";3. y' - �- M� i,�,• +F►, •%, 20 80 �-r::.a� .�4•�:.���Calit'-�.-r' ..t�$p� .x'=: asaht e.,, .. aartt- _ / sa.. rit ,�4. . aaan't x1/acat►t FP ra"s1l8Qa t ,:� �lacant zE ,�'flaca�►t FY94/95 $0 FY93/94.Total $115,632 indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park Space No. NAME Oct-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 Driftwood 3 Cadin $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329. 7 Parker $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $32901 11 Armstrong $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 12 Perez $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 18 Bolton $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 22 Hendrix $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 24 Collins $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 26 Kolshnik $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 28 Stipe $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 29 Hodge $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 30 Gaddis $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 31 Vacagt�.� .. =�`bY gd'nt ..f 33 Boyer $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 34 Brooks $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 _ 35 Dellsite $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 36 Claude $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 38 Simon $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 , ` a" ,Q P R39 Brennan Y y 40 Falkenstein $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 41 Kroesch $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 .$308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 43 Fader $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 44 Jones $308 $308. .. $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 FYV" $75,180 Life Estates 1 Brake $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 2 Canaletti $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 4 Foltz $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 6 Swanson $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 8 Hoss $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 9 Nocella $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 10 Bandel $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 . $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 13 VanBavel $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 14 Hayes $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 16 W $308 $308 _ $308 $308 $308 308 $308 $308 $308 $329 $329 $329 Ocean_ .aw Estates Mobilehome Park 17 IMorton 1 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $308 $3081 329 $329 $32911 FY95196 $41,349 Market ,:-:4'.':.: x.X.--•1"". ••�:'a:-rdy i3S.C �4, :3`4: - y .SrYY;�q/ �j z"yy-,,.� y�._{' miasma '�i+* z.N'a-`' -�- a �"'�'�'KTV6Qa►it ?`.":^a;,;.4S:Yri��4 '-y.� `!` 3Y4~-Y�7�"MY7F!}•-�'.�s".c'�1, aG811t -.w' - -Va98lnf ;+-' ? 8( Elf 15 ua,v-. Y su.,.cam.':: ;. _ p.. :y -.;'!'-'4_: _`E;••!r�- :V-_u ax ^`:'l.,ri;. 19 /+.b R_ �x„ .�: f'�.�17�<Jt t:? �d�flt_��.*.�w aeaAt,��*.r,. �nt �:.�..�ua�nt ;_�h�Vn4�nt: , �>�a'�a„nt u,��:���aea�i :��..;;i agrlt �Y,ac�ant ,x�"'. ..Y��►t -��_ �iix 'i.uy<x .- 3",�T r'n•- -"?.; - _ 3.R , 1..i. j,". t:: b •+r 'kt -Y' .>.v - 4::"•ro�w$if" "`a�\u" - -Nx -'y' 7-: '77 -n � G��•. _a ._.t t,,:�.-."��nf ��.�r�a���,�, aca. _mow �:�fa�anx :�.z,�.<.•�a�ttt; a�af9t < Vaunt Y�;��Vas�I�S._ � :.�c�ht t�";.•a..,... 20 FY95196 $0 FY95/96 Total $116,529 tJo'py indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST Space No. NAME Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Driftwood 3 Carlin $329 . $329 $329 $329 $329 ,` Ilt 7 Parker $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352' 11 Armstrong $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 .$329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 12 Perez $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 18 Bolton $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 22 Hendrix $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 24 Collins - $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 26 Kolshnik $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 28 Stipe $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 29 Hodge $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352. 30 Gaddis $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 Y'+�-77--' 7a..: -f✓-—i '.:iiry5?,r:.;:.r.'.1W:-- tx . 5a(f `._��._..Vsnt ca t i7a .. Va t 1!a nt=a, 31 s• .,:.,r,�:..•.cd �,.Y`:acaht .;Vacant r_>.�,..Yaoant 33 Boyer $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 . $352 $352 34 Brooks $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352. 35 Dellsite $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 36 Claude $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 38 Simon $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352!1$352 *tc' .t ,�C a,� 5 .r= f '� 1�T4`f'�' ':f: "N'° `4 f P E ,�'No'PaY '*'Nwt'aY y .... l�lo Pay .T3o P"alY �'?.4it4 PaY F. a No,F+a tt o R?Y :•N9. ,. 39 Brennan �Ib Pa n.. NR P.Y 40 Falkenstein $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 41 Kroesch $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 43 Fader $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $328 $329 $352 44 Jones $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 FY96/97 $77,531 Life Estates 1 IBrake $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 2 Canaletti $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 4 Foltz $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 6 Swanson $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 8 Hoss $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 9 Nocella $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 10 Bandel $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 13 VanBavel $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 14 Hayes $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 16 Wales $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $352 $352 1 �, Ocean,yew Estates Mobilehome Park 17 IMorton 1 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 $329 . $352 $352 FY96/97 $43,934 Market 3 lGeorgefInWGWd P1�f#WQod< ; QgRWg1 [}f�flYVRc�d :s DriltilVogd $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 - - - :se_..e'S.:. _2•:_»�,_,-aa.. ;+i'; -. .7�i a:A•.' -> �-'.e - �- - 15 EA9 [t x�ra4 . �tl1t :.u� Ys? L4t °: ? F1 `tF '\/AkB(� x3. nt s 'sY; >.:�} laiCaiit£�1# cdnttsXa�rdnf;fists', !a (1t .t1� f+t =a .t1nt 19 den 52W% '�9 R"A : _.._ R__tea ht = ,Vacant xi/ cart .'Cant.� I 4ant l940n4 t cah t 20 1>oyY1# 5 .. erl �C�E! :meant yax;y'�► PaJI s - _ - I� ht �,.Sh# V��aa�tgant _ � s FY96197 $3,465 FY9W7 Total $124,930 o ply;; indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST ISpace No. I NAME Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Driftwood 7 Iparker $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 11 Armstrong $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 12 Perez $352 .$352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 18 Bolton $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 : 22 Hendrix $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 1=r „•M.kt` :=:r;araLlkt 24 Collins $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 26 Kolshnik $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 28 Stipe $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 ;.Mkt A ,.; Y. ,:Mkt 3n: Mkt Mkt Mkt ;,tE r.,.:Mkt 29 Hodge $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352: 30 Gaddis $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352. 31 1/ - r1/ac��it tVaeant ;:w,: yae�nt Vaunt ;t 1(acant Vacant t VVacant �.; r aEant i?• Vao;��t _ l/acaAt :Vacant 3:i/aGant f._a Vaoa►rt . 33 Boyer $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352,: 34 Brooks $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 35 Dellsite $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 .$352 $352 ' ;x. Mkt a aMkt; k .M ' M 'k i M u 36 Claude $352 kt d rt Mkt Mkt 38 Simon $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352: 39 Brennan "N:a�Pa .No;p ''Na :' .';t+1o;Ra �"No P _IVo Ra rNo;Ray a�6'`Nona ' ,•s=Mq l'a t�o_Pa z'�No.Pa �•"No:Fa 40 Falkenstein $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 ktrx 41 Kroesch $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 43 Fader $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 44 Jones $352 $352,. $352 $352 $352-,�,rw u ,�Mls� 'i+;ryr ,_; �41!(t FMfi .,#;N711Gtes. s Mld'fix �, Mk. y ,MI(� a:MIR FY97/98 $68,992 Life Estates 1 IBrake $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 2 Canaletti $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352, 4 Foltz $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 . 6 Swanson $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 8 Hoss $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 9 Nocella $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 10 Bandel $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352• 13 VanBavel $352 $352 . $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 14 Hayes $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 16 Wabbel $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 17 Smith $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 .$352 $352 d� , Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park - FY97/98 $46,464 Market 3 lGeorge $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 15 -iency, - y.11aoant ,`, 'YaGant f. 1/agnt _` „Vacant Y2learlf = �> aGarlf ,Yaaflt K7a( rit k YaOnt 7.. Vac.a(lt ry- ?✓aC3tlt Vacant ��' -.... s" t ti �3 "'`''1}3: _ s tiz c_,, s..a .y- i s 4`. 19 e�Cy.__ _., �ldaant _:;s i.Vacant -a„Vaunt . .f..:18tsditt ,s'.._.YaC;3nt .,t_ aoaFlt .Vacant .Ifir�/ t , i... aaaAt , jlfBcaPt Vacan( 1. s..:.a/acant 20 Marsh $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 $850 21 �lacant : /apnf . ? Vacant >`V8+'aFlt 1/acant f Yaaant "rts..=Ya�altt � .Yasadnf .Varaltt _.:..:�laCallf. y .Vacant rNacant `;Vagnt _ rr .. . ,. A . . 95Rw $49522 Pham rD 23 r "'.;Vacant . :YaGant +r :l;Yal�yni, f :V?�aRt :\(aceint �. Ya of , .. 4 - y r Ff uacant„ ,>.. x<1/acant �acAnt Vapnt 1/ ca>yt ::,1/acaiit .1/aaarit 28 Sanchez r s El►jHiNAoit .�~d3liftjN�dp`nftxYosSti `. driftNWo9d `'_�nftvYilod . s l�iftWRS+tl $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 36 Conway *?;pew—Mod $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 .$495 $495 37 Vacant ' r r.. tlacant:` Nyacant .;�,> ; laoaht-i, ,', Vacant �.Vacant in t: 1/acant :V ccan ra i`1%aGdAt l/adwit rm + `! astdnt i..t:4�(aC.Arit tyr a fl� 40 Csikos ! QiiftWood 3 ©rlftVvcQd ..'�D�tfIWop(!F? F�iiflWct :.^'9rtflti� id $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 a495 $495 42 Stone $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 $352 44 Morton 3�'f .ffWDg1 € nftN( D�itllNood w1`dtV�4oS1 zrC�rlfYgQd $1,000 $960 $1,0001 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 FY97/98 $40,544 FY97/98 Total. $156,000 " :jyst Y indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST Space No. I NAME Oct-98 I Nov-98 I Dec-98 I Jan-89 I Feb-99 I Mar-99 I Apr-98 I May-99 I Jun-99 I Jul-99 I Aug-99 I Sep-99 Driftwood 5 IGnagy Vacant °V�oant `.Vacant $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208' 7 Parker $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 10 Baldwin Recant ` `Vaunt3 :rYa`cant $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 11 Armstrong $352 $206 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 12 Perez $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208, 18 Bolton $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 24 Collins $352 $268 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208. 25 Otting :Vacant 17: Vacant7' Vai (t' ` r .Yagant '-kh Vacant $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 26 Kolshnik $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208; 27 Hall Yar, nt "" Vaacant $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 29 Haibel ' ;Xacant ' Vacan. $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208, 30 Gaddis $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208, 31 Conger 1/aoant =n M• Vagnt Via . Vacant ._;:Vacant ; Vacafit $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208; 32 Battaglia Vacant vacant v Varaijt $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 y r�.Na s� 3a `i7 .. *n/a ;:�a w y Ne . 33 Boyer $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 f art' F ^. ,,n/a r. n/a 33 McNew ' s' nla `z _,:rj/a $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 34 Brooks $352 $268 $208 $208 $208 .._ -- .. . ... t _. :F 35 Dellsite $352 $208 $208 $208 35 Buckmaster Na :• �, n/a °" z:aifa may.._ ?. .N $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 38 Simon $334 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 39 Brennan `_„ ►a, aY `�" 4.1?a NsttFaY ""1o.F'aY � °'~ N9.Pay' `=f�6�t? Y 3 1it PflY, "ro-SAY. >i'' i+lP`. Y a"Nc PaY '*`:Nq Paj► sy�,va - :r}r'- '•rg••r. �. - _-y. ,� �. Y to< w . 41 Kroesch $352 41 Ervin ' " =_ :Na $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 43 Fader $352 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 44 jSween $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 FY98/99 $46,990 Life Estates 1 Brake $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 2 Canaletti $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $3771$3774 Foltz $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 ' $377 $3776 Swanson $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377ri#8 Hoss $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $379 Nocella $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $37713 VanBavel $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 o Oceatfew Estates Mobilehome Park 14 Hayes 1 $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377ff 16 Wabbel 1 $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 ' 17 Smith 1 $352 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 FY98199 $43,859 Market 3 George $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 ...t.;.. F:_..} -:r S••..,'. J- `m-q f — C�.:;;__ ��..,.ey-'y 4. +1:}; Y._t 15 y r Vacant .,: Vacant /ac.�iM 7 grant �_- � vacant Vactant .� vacant �Vacant ,Y, Vacarrt =3�;.;f,..scant ;:,�' ,Agenc :.. � V y v Vacant ,,��YacBnt 19 en ..: Y�eant j� Vacantlalkant s, aC.antA4ant 12ncaRt `Vacant 'Vacant scant Vaprit ...u.Vaunt py, .n.. scant h ' 20 Marsh $850 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910 $910- 21 ant `Vacant .+. '.:S/acantx�Vaoant ��„ :_;Vacant Vacant C/acant ,_.,vacant 22 Pham $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $530 $530 23 1/a�nt � i+ ..;::Vacant :�� Vacant.�: h Vacant . � �..: /acant ,::: Vacant ,.:.;Vacant • }a�Vacant �Vaaan . �., 1/acarjt Vacard � 28 Sanchez $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 .;.. 34 Hicks Qhfnvood _yJkDr�tiykgod 'Qr r ,Dr�ftWggd Fpritfy/nod $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 $530 36 Conway $495 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 _ :'�•.'ss ..F ;�- a r e[: .,e.- .3:r— 3•E. {:y. ,;!-�y. _ t?'. r.e':. 37 1/QCant Vaunt ,z�,V. t; tq Va ntVaga x of rlte} /�tf'8i1 !,tit „Fs f#` >�;,�: .. . . . ,F 8�n ,a,�;- . .5�._ ��1, � nt s .....,,�Vaca ., ... . t��:,,�Vaear�t .o .s�a�Rt j�, � .+Vacant .. r.�.Yacarn '�;..�,. scant�i;f�a c�VaGa(it 40 Csikos $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 $545 42 Passero 1 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 $495 44 IMorton 1 $1,000 1 $1,000 1 $1 000 �} jrtttiAlb ntt 3 Y tit to 6r111WR9t1-Aft t ttt lQ�l r>S ; t�tt !aod k ntt�vood .4.. o� _ x.t? _ . :4c 43 ii� �... _ rltvoifl fdrooa FY98/99 $55,430 FY9t3/99 Total $146.279 indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park LAST ISpace No. I NAME I Oct-98 I Nov-99 Dec-89 I Jan-00 I Feb-00 I Mar-00 I Apr-00 I May-00 I Jun-00 I Jul-00 I Aug-00 I Sep-00 Driftwood 5 pArmstro, $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 7 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 10 n $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 11 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 .$214 $214 12 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 18 Bolton 1 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 24 Collins $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 25 Otting $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214. 26 Kolshnik $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 27 Hall $208 $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 29 Haibel $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 30 Gaddis $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 32 Battaglia $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 31 Conger $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 .$214 $214 33 McNew $208 $208 $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 35 Buckmaster $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 38 Simon $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 _. r I - J - x 39 Brennan : h�¢R� and 't1�9 F% .RH�"cNo '� !" �:'fi► Fi '� i NQ f eY Na No aY b PPa" 41 Ervin $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 43 lFader 1 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 44 ISween 1 $208 $208 $208 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 FY99/00 $51,137 Life Estates 1 Brake $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 2 Canaletti $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 4 Foltz $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 8 Hoss $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 9 Nocella $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 13 VanBavel $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 14 Hayes $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 16 Wabbel $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 17 Morton $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $377 $403 $403 $403 FY99/00 $41,429 Ocem liew Estates Mobilehome Park LAST kpaceNo. I NAME Oct-00 I Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 I Feb-01 I Mar-01 I Apr-01 I May-01 I Jun-01 I Jul-01 I Aug-01 I Sep-01 Driftwood 5 Gnagy $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222. 7 Parker $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222F 10 Baldwin $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $$2 222 11 Armstrong $214 $222 $222 22 '',_} ,.,,.:Mkt ,, Mkt s Mkt ;:,dulkt ;c..r_ Mkt r ... :MIS Mkt : .Mkt. 12 Perez $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 18 Bolton $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 24 Collins $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 . $222 $222 25 Otting $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 26 Kolshnik $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 ' 27 Hall $214 $214 $214 $214 $223 $223 $223 $223 $223 $223 $223 $223 29 Haibel $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 30 Gaddis $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 31 Conger $214 $214 $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222, 32 Battaglia $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222' 33 McNew $214 $214 7 .. ... . , . ._ . . �* ¢ ,.1 -r•, ..:.TWid -�r" . �r;Mkt �."r�MkE 35 Buckmaster $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 -' $222 38 Simon $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 39 Brennan *''NQ°Ra Al r r!c N.a F!� "No Ray rh..,;No Ad �*Nb:Pay ;7'.Noe 41 Ervin $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 43 Fader $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 . $222 $222 , 44 Sween $214 $214 $214 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 FY00/01 $48.960 Life Estates 1 113rake $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 2 Canaletti $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432_ 4 Foltz $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 8 Hoss $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 . $432 $432 9 Nocella $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 13 VanBavel $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 14 Hayes $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 16 Wabbel $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 3432 $432 $432 17 Morton $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $432 $432 $432 $432 FY00/01 $44,583 Market 3 George 1 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 r'k r��,�a'kr/� �a s : 1�a+s,_- �t�.%r.-tlla ;' : :fl/8 ,; ? dial 3 lCritchfield 1r, ., "j3stl � �: Rt1l� a '+x ; t till '1L °'iUa i�?� tt> ram':nti $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 6 Tro' '_ ,.: ¢'dtlt $6501 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 .. $650 $650 Oceanview Estates Mobilehome Park 11 Weeks `L;flf ttwQud t-A Rrifl ood ;Arlftwoo -� Qrfittivo94 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 15 Masamitsu 1[a cacf Ccapt f`_s_ 1,Cacaitt`af` `_Vacant '1laCant >, .r=qq Ot<._ $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 19 Macias ` .` as�nt_ s{vacant'� ='sVaOant , 7 VaFant 7777 1facdnt '.Vacant $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 20 vacant a.1/aCatlf � Vr?t ._' aeant %, [c�ftt iYa �t .z:``'Y8dr1t ?:VaCdnt Y «Vaunt v1Ya��lt ' :.i/aiant777 VaCdht 21 Hale $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $676 22 Pham $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $657 $657 23 Deerfield $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $676 28 Sanchez $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 33 Westcott S�tiftv!o`od :7<.-"Driflvliogd $214 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 34 Hicks $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $607 $607 $607 $607 $607 $607 $607 36 Conway $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 Va: 36 Marks '.. ..., a i"y? t b iz a �Y lNa 6 wh' z rfJ/ 2 ` flNa f:.M 7 i' 1 .>,�t 9 S^h�xS�oT N:wa 7 ril/a <^ ' ....,_.Na $676 $676 37 Walker $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 .$850 $650 $650 $650 $676 39 Retwllar rt, .file :r= s:;l1/51 .t"c_:4 3 N@' nr:(I/a T4 s :.; $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 40 Csikos $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $595 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 42 Passero $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 $567 77 42 Passero :"" -f�. ���..nla ,:�k:�,.�,,.��;iVa � �.. �v 70xn r4 r-m-7,3-7 Na ,_.....ifala $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 FY00l01 $104,329 FY00l01 Total $197.872 5` 'NoPi" indicates tenant refused to pay rent as agreed Oceanview estates Mobilehome Park FY01/02 LAST Space No. NAME Oct-01 Nov-01 I:D:e:c�-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Driftwood 5 Gnagy $222 $222 $222 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 7 Parker $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 . $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 . $232 10 Baldwin $222 $222 $222 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 :"= $229 ?:_ :"-�r.�::�.Mkt 12 Perez $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 18 Bolton $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 24 Collins $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 - $232 25 Ottin9 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 26 Kolshnik $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 27 Hall $223 $223 $223 $223 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 29 Halbel $222 $222 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 30 Gaddis $222 $222 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 . $230 31 Conger $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 $230 32 Battaglia $222 $222 $222 $229 $229 35 Buckmaster $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 38 Simon $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 41 Ervin $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 43 Fader $222 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 $232 44 Sween $222 $222 $222 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $229 $22 $229 9 $229 FY01/02 $47.460 Life Estates 1 Brake $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 2 Canaletti $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 4 Foltz $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 8 Hoss $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 9 Nocella $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 13 VanBavel $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 14 Hayes $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $462 $462 16 Wabbel $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $482 $462 $462 17 Motion $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $432 $462 $462 $402 $462 FY01l02 $47.709 Market 3 Critchfield $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $680 $680 $680 $080 $680 6 Tr er $650 $680 . $680 $680 $680 $680 8 Randle /��p�� J 0 $880 $880 $880 $880 $880 10 t.M1u��f4M1�a;?F� ry a M :YlK� ='•:Ysr G Y t •'.1 y l y.'.:'is t.t T �. r•,e mad am.. 11}tyYQ' ti u d t ��u�lvru44 _ .Driftwood,< tifhNooi! �woad ,Ah�i $68o. $680 11 W $650 $650 $850 $650 $680 $880 � $680 $680 $880 $680 $680 . r 1 Oceanview estates Mobilehome Park FY01/02 15 Masamitsu $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 19 Macias $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 20 Enslen $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 21 Hale $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $876 $676 $680 22 lPham $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $657 $700 $700 23 Deerfield $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676> ;„aX'rila" fiz%r= 1t/p zt5 t°zri/8 23 Johnson p_ a , :-. :,;::; , nla r:� ..Ne,, ,ter„+Na ',;:w•��.s� F:N� .} P;,Na ,...,� ,'��'!� `�x �;� �f'r.��r.:�r�a ��.r,.��>..n(a $680 $680 $680 28 Sanchez $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650. $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 32 Robison 7Q[rf[vv{�4d t-r?:11ftwg4d' :IQVVOod vArifhNogd $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 33 Wastcott $650 $650 $650 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 34 Hicks $607 $607 $607 $607 $607 $644 $644 $644 $644 $644 $644 $644 36 Marks $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $680 $680 37 Walker $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 $676 39 Rebollar $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 $680 40 Csikos $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 $637 $662 $662 $662 $662 $662 42 Passero 1 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $650 $680 $6801 $680 $680 $680 FY01102 $142.031 FY01f02 Total $237,200 Lit April 9, 2002 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention: Michael Hennessey Real Estate Services Division Subject: Market Value Study City-Owned Property 200-204 51h Street Huntington Beach, California Long Beac Office: 3353 Linde Avenue Suite 200 Long Beach, A ,In accordance with your request and authorization, I have completed a 90807-4503 limited scope restricted appraisal study of the above-referenced ;property. The valuation study consisted of (1) a complete on-site field inspection of the subject property, (2) a review of public records, (3) the research and Orange County Office: collection of comparable market data in the immediate and general 2808 E.Katella Avenue subject market area, and (4) a valuation analysis employing applicable Suite 107 Orange, CA valuation methodology. 92867-5246 The purpose of the appraisal study is to express an estimate of market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property. The intended ' use is to assist the City of Huntington Beach in potential sale r negotiations; intended users are City officials and consultants thereof for Telephone: 1 the explicit purpose and intent indicated above. (562, 988 29a6 (714) 633-84,41 j After considering the various factors which influence value, the market Facsimile: value of the unencumbered fee simple interest in the subject property, in (7.14)63.3 449 as-is condition, as of April 5, 2002, is as follows: / FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS $585,000. l 1 t LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES 1 M f ! D U 1 D A T L Tl Real Estate Appraisal andConsultation City of Huntington Beach Attention.--Michael Hennessey y Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 2 The valuation study is set forth in this restricted appraisal report format in lieu of a complete formal self-contained appraisal report. This document complies with the reporting requirements set forth in the Uniform Standards of\Professional Appraisal Practice, under Standard-Rule 2-2(c), for a restricted appraises report. This report incorporates, by reference, the data and valuation analysis contained in our office file .and data base. The information contained in this summary appraisal report is specific to the needs of the client; no responsibility is assu ed for unauthorized use of this report. The full extent of the appraisal process ay not be apparent to the reader in the contents of this report. This restricted report does not constitute a self-contained appraisal report, and should not be_.. construed as such. 5 i Legal Description: The legal description of the subject property is as follows: 7 Westerly 63.5 feet of Lots 2, 4, and 6, Block 204, Huntington Beach It Tract, per map recorded in Book 3, Page 36 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, County of Orange, California. Property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 024-147-08, 29. i Ownership History: i Orange County Assessor's records indicate the subject property was acquired by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency on July 30, 1999 as Document No. 557778. It is understood that the subject property has not been marketed for sale in recent years. Subject Land. The subject property is located at the northeasterly corner of 51h Street and Walnut Avenue within the Downtown district of the City of Huntington Beach. The site is zoned for commercial/residential use, has a rectangular land configuration, effectively level topography, and contains 4,763 square feet of land area. Subject Improvements: The subject property is presently improved with a two-story building and appurtenant on-site improvements described as follows: LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention Michael Hennessey ,,-- Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 3 Subject Improvements: (Continued) Main building: X Single family residence converted to commercial use, two stories, wood frame and siding construction, average-good quality, Class D construction perimeter concrete foundation, asphalt shingle roofing, oak flooring, painted lath/plaster interior walls and ceilings, wood'\ frame/panel doors, double hung wood frame windows and plate glass windows set in wood frames, and conventional electrical/plumbing systems. The building has two 3-piece rest room facilities (one on each floor), and a 30t gallon water heater. The building was originally constructed in 1912, and contains 2,882 square feet. On-site Improvements: _ Existing on-site improvements include concrete paving, asphalt paving, handicap ramp, flag pole, inground irrigation system, and ornamental landscaping. Property condition: Overall condition of the existing building and on-site improvements is rated average-good, considering the age. It is apparent that the building has been renovated in recent years. Occupancy: The subject property is presently utilized as a police substation. i Highest and Best Use: Highest and best use is defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, sponsored by the l Appraisal Institute, 12th,Edition, Page 305, as "the reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value." In the process of forming an opinion of highest and best use, consideration must be giving to various environmental and political factors such as zoning restrictions, probability of zone change, private deed restrictions, location, land size and configuration, topography, and the character/quality of land uses in the immediate and general subject market area. The subject parcel has a rectangular land configuration with effectively level topography. The site has a nonsignalized corner location at the intersection of LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES TNrrnunnu A1rPn Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington-Reach ;Attention:—Michael Hennessey-----__ Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 4 Highest and Best Use: (Continued) two secondary streets within the Downtown Commercial District. The parcel contains 4,763 square feet of land area. All public utilities including water, gas, electric power, telephone, as well as sanitary sewer are available to the site. The physical characteristics of the subject parcels are considered adeq�ate to accommodate any legally permissible use. The subject property is located within SP5-A (Old Town Specific Plan) zone of tie City of Huntington Beach. Legally permitted uses include mixed use commercial/residential development. The optimal utility of the subject site is as . zoned. Based on the demand, and considering the physical characteristics of the subject , site, as well as the legally permissible uses, it is the appraiser's opinion that the maximally productive use, and therefore, the highest and best use of the subject land, as if vacant, is a mixed use commercial/residential development. ` � 5 The subject property, as presently improved, is obviously physically possible, and represents a pre existing legal nonconforming use with respect to current development standards. The subject building and on-site improvements are relatively well maintained. In conclusion, the overall functional utility of the subject property is competitive with the preponderance of commercial properties in the immediate market area. The regional and neighborhood characteristics are favorable for commercial office/retail properties, with stable rents and anticipated value appreciation over time. The existing improvements are in average-good condition; it is apparent that the property can generate rental income adequate to cover operating expenses and provide an adequate rate of return. The subject property, as presently improved, is considered financially feasible, and represents the most productive use. Based on an inspection of the subject property, as well as the valuation analysis which considered property values, rental rates, historical occupancy rates, operating expenses, as well as expressed tenant demand,.the existing subject development represents the highest and best use of the subject property. "1 LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES TMO nADnV A TFT C Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach ;Attention: Michael Hennessey`` -' Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 5 Valuation: There are three conventional methods (approaches) which can�be utilized to estimate value. They are the Sales Comparison Approach, Cost-Summation Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach. The Sales Comparison Approach and Income Capitalization Approach have%been applied to the subject property. The Cost-Summation Approach has not been applied due to the (1) absence of a representative number of reasonably comparable land parcels on which to base the underlying land value, and (2) age/legal nonconforming status of existing improvements and resultant difficulty in accurately estimating accrued depreciation. ,1 Sales Comparison Approach: \ The Sales Comparison Approach takes into account properties which have sold in the open market. This approach, whether applied to vacant or improved property, is based on the Principal of Substitution which states, "The maximum value of a property tends to be set by the cost of acquiring an equally desirable << substitute property, assuming no costly delay is encountered in making the substitution." Thus, the Sales Comparison Approach attempts to equate the subject property with sale properties by analyzing an weighing the various elements of comparability. The Sales Comparison Approach has been applied to the subject property after an investigation and analysis of recent sales involving improved commercial f properties in the greater subject market area. Comprehensive information pertaining to each of the sale properties is contained in the appraiser's file. Primary indicators studied included rental rates, lease terms versus month-to- month occupancies, vacancy factors, vacancy trends, and terms of sale. Other ' elements considered included (1) pride of ownership exhibited by an aggressive and ongoing maintenance program, and (2) trends toward change evidenced by private redevelopment and remodeling, or gradual continued building ' degeneration in certain areas. Following is a summary of those sales when estimating the value of the subject property as presently improved with the converted single family residence. Continued LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES TNrnR PnRATF. n pp Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach__ Attentiorf—MichaelHennessey r- Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 6 Valuation:(Continued) Sales Comparison Approach:(Continued) Land Size Corner Alley Land/Bldg. Data Date Bldg. Size Built Const'n. Ratio Sale Price $/SF L&nd. 1. 2-00 2,875 sf no yes 0.82:1 $ 960,000. $333.91 3,500 sf 116 brick $274.29 ` 215 Main Street, Huntington Beach \ 2. 4-00 9,559 sf no yes 4.56:1 $ 433,500. $ 45.35 2,097 sf '46 wd.frm. $206.72 714 Main Street, Huntington Beach _t 3. 11-00 11,750 sf no yes 1.71:1 $1,647,500. $140.21 6,873 sf '89 frm./stuc. $239.71 y #' 330 Main Street, Huntington Beach 4. 2-01 6,300 sf yes yes 2.47:1 $ 550,000. $ 87.30 2,548 sf '75 wd.frm. $215.86 16501-11 Coast Highway, Sunset Beach 1 1 5. 3-01 5,875 sf no yes 2.29:1 $ 550,000. $ 93.62 2,560 sf '73 frm./stuc. $214.84 321 Main Street, Seal Beach i 6. 8-01 2,938 sf no yes 1.96:1 $ 343,000. $116.75 • r 1,500 sf '49 wd.frm. $228.67 r 124 Main Street, Seal Beach r I r 7. 9-01 2,937 sf no yes 1.85:1 $ 357,500. $121.72 ' 1,584 sf '40 wd.frm. $225.69 136 Main Street, Seal Beach. The improved commercial sale properties surveyed contain buildings ranging in size from 1,500 to 6,873 square feet and were constructed between 1916 and;` 1989. The developments are situated on parcels ranging in size form 2,875 to 11,750 square feet of land area. The sales are set forth in chronological order, and took place between February, 2000, and September, 2001. LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation Pity of Huntington_Beac h jAttention:-Michael Hennessey`"---- - Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 7 Valuation: (Continued) Sales Comparison Approach:(Continued) �. After viewing each of the sale properties, and obtaining certain information pertinent to land value, the appraiser analyzed the various elements of comparability for each sale property, which, among others, include the follovSi g: General location. Availability of public alley. �\ Immediate environmental influences. Street frontage. Zoning. Site prominence and exposure. Vehicular/pedestrian access. Building size. Building age and condition. Construction quality. �. Building.features Extent of other on-site improvements On-site parking capacity. Overall marketability. 1 -It should be noted that the above elements of comparability were not assigned l equal weight in making the analysis of each property. The general location, immediate environmental influences, land size, building size, site prominence/exposure, building age/condition, and extent of on-site automobile parking were considered the most important factors in this case. After all of the elements of comparability between the subject property and the improved sale properties were considered with respect to superior, inferior, and similar features, two factors developed from the improved market data sale were utilized as the primary units of analysis. They are the (1) overall purchase price per square foot of land area, and (2) overall purchase price per square foot of building area. The land/building area ratio was also considered in the analysis of the improved office building sale properties when compared to the subject facility. The subject property has a ratio of 1.65:1; the sale properties have ratios ranging between 0.82:1 and 4.56:1. In addition to the location, immediate environmental influences, land size, building size, age, construction quality, etc., the land/building ratio is of major importance when analyzing the overall purchase price per square foot of land area and building area. It can be noted in the summary of improved commercial sale properties that the greater the ratio, the larger the differential between. the l purchase price per square foot of land, and the purchase price per square foot of building. n 0 I LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES YNrORPnRATF.n Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention:-'Michael Hennessey - �. Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 8 Valuation: (Continued) Sales Comparison Approach:(Continued) Based on an analysis of the improved commercial sale properties employed herein, which considered the property rights conveyed, terms of sale, conditions of sale, as well as the various elements of comparability, the value of the subject property, as presently improved, is as follows: \ Land: \ 4,763 SF @ $123.00 = $585,849. Building: 2,882 SF Q $200.00 = $576,400. :t The building value factor applied above is slightly below the value range indicated ,l by the various sale properties due to the relatively low land/building area ratio of the subject property. Inasmuch as the subject property is improved, and would typically be acquired for the income producing capability or utility of the building +; improvement, the value indication produced by the building factor is assigned the most weight. The value of the subject property, as presently improved, is adjusted to $576,000. Income Capitalization Approach: The Income Capitalization Approach is based on the capitalization of net income generated, or capable of being generated, by the subject property. The net operating income is the product of the estimated gross rental income, less various expense charges. The capitalization rate employed in this study has been developed by an analysis of certain sale properties wherein the net income was available to determine the overall capitalization rate. Gross Income: The fair market rental rate applicable to the subject commercial building has been estimated after conducting a rent survey covering other improved commercial properties within the greater subject market area of Huntington Beach. Comprehensive information pertaining to each of the comparable rental properties is contained in the appraiser's file and data base. After considering the elements of comparability of the various rental properties surveyed, and further considering the building age/condition, individual floor size, (� S' LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach _ Attention:`Michael Hennessey' '-- Real Estate Services Division�� April 9, 2002 Page 9 Valuation: (Continued) Income Capitalization Approach:(Continued) �. Gross Income: (Continued) `. construction quality, and features of the subject facility, the fair market rental rates applicable to the subject building is $2.25 per square foot of building area op a gross basis. Vacancy and Credit Loss: ti The vacancy and credit loss factor is typically based on the expected rent loss due to periodic tenant turnover. Lease terms for commercial properties in the ; subject vicinity range from three to five years, and typically include option periods. Considering the length of the existing subject tenancies, as well as discussions with commercial real estate brokers, a five-year term is typical for the subject ` facility. t Based on an average marketing (leasing) time of approximately three months, the total loss of income for the subject property is estimated at $19,455 ($6,485 x 3 months). Inasmuch as the frequency of tenant turnover has been estimated at approximately five years, the annual vacancy loss attributable to the subject property equates to $3,891, which reflects 5.0% of the estimated gross annual { income. i The matter of credit loss, however, must also be considered in the income analysis. Considering the occupancy pattern of the subject facility, as well as the general demographics of the subject market area, a relatively nominal credit loss rate is appropriate for the subject property. An annual combined vacancy/credit loss factor, therefore, of 6% has been employed in the income capitalization analysis of the subject facility. Operating Expenses: In order to estimate the stabilized occupancy expense schedule applicable to the subject facility, the appraiser relied upon (1) expense schedules obtained from similar properties within the greater Orange and Los Angeles County region, (2) interviews with real estate brokers and professional property managers, and (3) various published sources. 9'9 LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention— ichael Hennessey``' Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 10 \ Valuation: (Continued) Income Capitalization Approach:(Continued) Operating Expenses: (Continued) \\ Inasmuch as the subject property is vested with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, it is exempt from annual real estate property taxes. \.,For the purpose of the Income Capitalization Approach, the real estate taxes have been adjusted (per Proposition 13) based on the current appraised value of the subject property, as follows: ,Y Market value estimate: $ 585,000. Tax rate: x1.150000% 4 5 _ $6,728. �. Adjusted: $6,725. Ile Annual property insurance premiums vary considerably depending upon the s insurance company, amount of deductible, liability coverage, building size, building age, etc. The annual insurance premium is based on a composite rate ' which is applied to the replacement cost of the building and on-site improvements. Most insurance companies, however, exclude the value of the building foundation and underground plumbing in their replacement cost figure. The typical policy offered by insurance companies includes extended coverage . on buildings and contents at replacement cost in case of destruction by fire, wind, hail, smoke, vandalism, and aircraft, but it excludes earthquake and flood hazards. The typical package also includes coverage for loss of rents up to 12 months, general business liability, and other coverages.. Based on a survey of various insurance companies, and considering the location of the subject property, as well as. building size, building age/condition, number of tenants, and overall construction quality, the annual insurance premium is estimated at $950 is considered appropriate for the subject facility. Professional management fees vary considerably depending on the property size, tenant turnover rate, building condition, amenities, etc. Generally, professional management fees range from 3% to exceeding 6%. Based on the location of the subject property, as well as the building size and building age/condition, a professional management fee of 5% is considered appropriate. h An allowance for leasing commissions has also been incorporated in the expense j V analysis. LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach ;Attention "Michael Hennessey Real Estate Services Division rl April 9, 2002 Page 11 Valuation: (Continued) Income Capitalization Approach:(Continued) ��•, Operating Expenses: (Continued) While the professional manager is responsible for day-to-day bookkeeping, a charge of $400 has been included in the expense schedule for various le.gal'�and accounting services, including annual tax returns. \ Maintenance and repair expenses may cover periodic roof repair, exterior.. painting, repair of lighting and plumbing equipment, etc. Considering the age of the subject building, an assuming complete renovation, a maintenance/repair expense of $4,000 per annum is considered appropriate for the subject t development, which amount includes, weekly landscaping service, bi weekly janitorial service, as well as a reserve allowance for capital expenditures and future tenant improvements. i Income/Expense Schedule: h Following is the income and expense schedule considered applicable to the subject property. I Monthly rental income: i First floor: 1,466 SF @ $2.25 = $3,299. Second floor: 1,416 SF @ $2.25 = 3.186.. Total gross monthly income: $6,485. Total gross annual income: $6,485 x 12 = $77,820. Vacancy and credit loss (6%): - 4.669. Effective gross annual income: (carried forward) $73,151. Continued . . . a +l1 LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention:—Michael He = Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 1..2 Valuation: (Continued) Income Capitalization Approach: (Continued) Income/Expense Schedule: (Continued) Effective gross annual income: (brought forward) $73,151. ` ti Annual expenses: Real estate taxes: $6,725. Insurance: 950. Management (5%): 3,650. Leasing commissions: 3,900. Utilities (by tenants): 00. Legal and accounting: 400. Maintenance/repairs/reserves: 4,000. t Total annual expenses: - 19,625. Net annual operating income: $53,526. t Capitalization of Net Income: As stated in the foregoing portion of the Income Capitalization Approach, the capitalization rate employed in this study has been developed by an analysis of certain sale properties wherein the net income was available to determine the 1 overall capitalization rate. The overall capitalization rates obtained from the marketplace generally range between 8.0% and exceeding 10.0%. In view of (1) the location of the subject property, (2) effective age and construction type/quality of the subject improvements compared to the various sale property improvements (wherein a capitalization rate was derived), and (3) the date of sale, i.e. economic and financial conditions prevailing during the consummation of the various sale properties, as compared to the current market conditions, the overall capitalization rate considered applicable to the subject property is estimated at 9.0%, as follows: Capitalization of net income: r $53,526 capitalized at 9.0% _ $594,733. `\ Based on the foregoing, the value of the subject property, as indicated by the Income Capitalization Approach, is $595,000. LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach l Attention:- IVlichael Hennessey'-- Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 13 Valuation: (Continued) Reconciliation: Value indicated by Sales Comparison Approach: $576,000. Value indicated by Cost-Summation Approach: not applicable. Value indicated by Income Capitalization Approach: $595,000. This report contains some of the information compiled and considered in formin the final estimate of value. It should be noted that the reconciliation is not an averaging process. It involves and analysis of data upon which the various approaches were developed. Based on the foregoing valuation, and assigning generally equal weight to the Sales Comparison Approach and Income. Capitalization Approach, the i.unencumbered fee simple market value of the subject property, in as-is condition, is estimated at $585,000. i, t Marketing Exposure: l The marketing time of a particular property is a direct function of supply and demand within a particular market segment. Generally, a higher demand results I in a shorter marketing period. Based on interviews of real estate market participants including various real estate brokers and property managers, the marketing time estimated for the subject property, assuming an aggressive and comprehensive marketing program is six to eight months. 1 Definitions of Market Value: The definitions of market value as recognized by federal financing institutions, and the State of California are as follows: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open ' market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby, (1) the buyer and seller are typically motivated, (2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests, (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market, (4) payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto, and Q �� v LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention,--Michael Hennessey �— Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 1.4 Definitions of Market Value: (Continued) (5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. The California Code of Civil Procedure, S1263.320, states: "(A) The fair market valu of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (B) The fair market value of property taken for which there is no relevant market is its t value on the date of valuation as determined by any method of valuation that.is just and equitable." Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: The subject appraisal study has been completed with the following understanding as set forth in items No. 1 through 16, inclusive: 1. That liability of Lidgard and Associates, Inc., along with the specific appraiser responsible for this report, is limited to the client only and to the fee actually received by the firm. There is no accountability, obligation or liability to any third party reader/user of this report. In the event this appraisal report is delivered to anyone other than the client for whom this report was prepared, it is the client's responsibility to make such party and/or parties aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of this assignment and related discussions. 2. That in the event the client or any third party brings legal action against Lidgard and Associates, Inc., or the preparer of this report, and the appraiser prevails, the party initiating such legal action shall reimburse Lidgard and Associates, Inc. and/or the appraiser for any and all costs of any nature, including attorney's fees, incurred in their defense. 3. That this restricted appraisal report has been prepared in lieu of a complete formal self-contained appraisal report. This document is intended to comply . with the reporting requirements set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, under Standard Rule 2-2(c),for a restricted LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attention;-06hael Hennessey Real Estate Services Division ``- April 9, 2002 Page 15 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: (Continued) appraisal report. The full extent of the appraisal process.wil(not be apparent to the reader in the contents of this report; the data and valuation analysis contained in my office file and data base are incorporated herein by reference. The information contained in this limited scope restricted appraisal report is specific to the needs of the client; no responsibility is assumed for the -, unauthorized use of this report. This restricted appraisal report does not constitute a complete formal self-contained appraisal report, and should not be t construed as such. \ 4 4. That title to the subject property is assumed to be good and merchantable. Liens and encumbrances, if any, have not been deducted from the final estimate of value. The vesting was obtained from County Records, or other sources, and has been relied upon as being accurate. The subject property has been appraised as though under responsible ownership. The legal description is assumed accurate, unless otherwise stated. i 5. That the appraiser assumes there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the subject property, subsoil, structures, or other improvements, if any, which would render them more or less valuable, unless otherwise stated. Further,the appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions or for the engineering which might be required to discover such conditions. That mechanical and electrical systems and equipment, if any, except as otherwise may be noted in my office file and/or this document, are assumed to be in good working order. The property appraised is assumed to meet all governmental codes, requirements, and restrictions, unless otherwise stated. 6.. That no soils report, topographical mapping, or survey of the subject property was provided to the appraiser; therefore information, if any, provided by other qualified sources pertaining to these matters is believed accurate, but no liability is assumed for such matters. Further, information, estimates and opinions furnished by others and contained in the office file and/or this document pertaining to the subject property and market data were obtained from sources considered reliable and are believed to be true and correct. No responsibility, however, can be assumed by the appraiser for the accuracy of such items. 7. That unless otherwise stated herein, it is assumed there are no ` encroachments, easements, soil toxics/contaminants, asbestos, or other physical conditions adversely affecting the value of the subject property. Q,\ LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach 4A entiori:—Michael Hennes a�'-- Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 16 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: (Continued) S. That no opinion is expressed regarding matters which are legal in ature .or other matters which would require specialized investigation or knowledge ordinarily not employed by real estate appraisers, even though such matters may be mentioned in the file notes and/or this document. 9. That no oil rights have been included in the opinion of value expressed herein. 10. That the valuation of the property appraised is based upon economic and financing conditions prevailing as of the date of value set forth herein. Further, - the valuation assumes good, competent, and aggressive management of the subject property. t 1 1. That the appraiser has conducted a visual inspection of the subject property - t and the market data properties. Should subsequent information be provided i relative to changes or differences in (1)the quality of title, (2) physical condition 7`1 or characteristics of the properties, and/or (3) governmental restrictions and i regulations, which would increase or decrease the value of the subject property, the appraiser reserves the right to amend the value reported herein. 12. That the appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give testimony in court or at any governmental or quasi-governmental hearing with reference to the property appraised, unless contractual arrangements have been previously made therefor. { 13. That drawings, plats, maps, and other exhibits contained in my file, which may be utilized in a formal narrative appraisal report, if authorized, are for illustration purposes only and are not necessarily prepared to standard engineering or architectural scale. 14. That this restricted appraisal report is effective only when considered in its entire form. No portion of this document will be considered binding if taken out of context. 15. That possession of this restricted report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor shall the contents of this document be copied or conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, sales, news, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly with regard to the value of the property appraised and the identity of the appraiser, or the appraisal firm, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or designations conferred by said organization. LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attentionf— ichael Hennesseyey Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 1.7 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: (Continued) 16. That the subject appraisal study-is considered completely confidentialand will not be disclosed or discussed, in whole or in part, with anyone other than the client, or persons designated by the client. �\ Certification: \ I certify that, e b f m owl belief:rt fy t, to the best o y knowledge and bell � I have personally inspected the subject property in connection with the appraisal study. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the real estate which is the subject of this appraisal report. Also, I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report, or the parties involved in this 4 assignment. My engagement in this assignment, and the amount of compensation, are not :.1. contingent upon the reporting or development of pre-determined values or t` 'direction in value that favors (1) the cause of the client, (2) the amount of the value opinion, (3) the attainment of predetermined/stipulated results, or (4) the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this t appraisal. , To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. i i This appraisal report sets forth all of the assumptions and limiting conditions im osed b the terms of this assignment or the undersigned), affecting m (imposed Y 9 Y 9 ), g Y personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 1 The analyses, opinions, and conclusions,were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and the Code of Professional Ethics. As of the date of this report, I have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the State of California. Further, duly authorized representatives of the State, as well as the Appraisal Institute, have the right to review this report. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opinions of this appraisal study. I appreciate having the opportunity of providing you with real estate appraisal services in this matter. A copy of this restricted appraisal report document is retained in my office file, which document must not be construed as a complete formal self-contained appraisal report. Supporting market data utilized in LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation City of Huntington Beach Attervtion`'Michael Hennessey Real Estate Services Division April 9, 2002 Page 1.8 \ formulating the value indicated herein, along with the valuation analysis, are contained in my office file and data base, and can be utilized,-..:in preparing a complete formal self-contained appraisal report, if authorized. Very truly yours, LIDGARD AND ASSOC \ l Scott A. Lidgard, MAI General Real Estate Appraiser �t California Certification No.AG 004014 Renewal Date: March 13, 2004 SAL:sp k - 1 I i , r k 1 It SA LIDGARD AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation Surplus Property # 9 1 Address: 214 Fifth Street Location: East side of Fifth St. south of Olive Ave. APN: 024-147-34 Improvement Size: N/A Lot Dimension/ 50'xl07.5' / 5,375 SF Size: General Plan: MV-F6/25-SP-PD (Mixed Use Vertical) Zoning: SP5-A Existing Use: Vacant Land Highest and F , - Best Use: The subject property meets the standards for development l for the existing land use designation. The highest and best use for the subject is mixed-use commercial / residential development. There may be considerable value added by selling the adjacent site to the south in conjunction with this property. *Estimated Value: $500,000 l *Note: Property has not been appraised. t i' ;i I I I Surplus Property # 8 Address: 200 Fifth Street Location: NEC Fifth St. & Walnut Ave. APN: 024-147-29 Improvement �I Size: N/A it Lot Dimension/ Size: 25' x 63.5' / 1,587.5 SF General Plan: MV-F6/25-SP-PD (Mixed Use Vertical) Zoning: SP5-A Existing Use: Parking lot serving the adjacent property (204 Fifth St.) Highest and Best Use: The subject property does not meet the minimum lot size of 2,500 SF needed for development. The highest and best j use for the subject is as joinder with the adjacent property to be held for future development. 1 *Estimated Value: $125,000 �. *Note: Property has not been appraised. l