HomeMy WebLinkAboutR32-Economic Development Agency
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FROM: Maggie Pacheco SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO 1993 CITY/AGENCY
Deputy Director VERDEMONT LOAN AGREEMENT AND
O R I G lNA L PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
PROPOSED INCREASE TO THE
J.)_1\_IIO.'mm~_a~c_11_2_~,~22Lmmmm__mmmnmm_mmmmmnm_m"_F;~~l\!Q.I"!I]\I-"_~~Ig!f~I!1gE_XF;J;:.rY!1!2nn
SvnoDsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action(s):
On December 4, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Ordinance MC-690 levying an infrastructure fee.
On January 3, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Ordinance MC-695 extending the effective date of
Ordinance MC-690 and Resolution 90~2 revising the amount of an infrastructure fee to be levied.
On June 25, 1990, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 90-253 revising the amount of the infrastructure
fee to be levied from $7,375 to $6,068 due to deletion of water system.
On January 7, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 91-9 revising the amount of the infrastructure
fee to be levied from $6,068 to S6,976.
On March 2, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution No. 92-87 revising the amount of the
infrastructure fee to be levied frum $6,976 to S7,699.
On January IS, 1993, the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council approved the
Verdemont Improvement Loan Agreement, by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino
and the City of San Bernardino.
On February 20, 1995, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 95-40 decreasing the amount of the
infrastructure fee to be levied from $7,699 to $1,500.
On February 20, and March 6, 2003, the Redevelopment Committee Members Anderson, Suarez and Estrada
unanimously voted to reconunend that the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council
consider the Amendmcnt No. I to the Verdemont Loan Agreement by and between the Agency and the City and increase
the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee (VIF) from $1,500 to 53,000.
u____________ ____________________.______________________________________-. -----------------.- ------------------------ -.--------------------------------------------------- ~----.--------------------
Recommended Motions:
OPEN/CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MOTION A ONLY
(Mavor And Common Conncil)
MOTION A: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, REVISING SECTION I OF RESOLUTION 95-40 RELATING TO
THE AMOUNT OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FEE TO BE LEVIED FOR RJGHT-OF-WAY
IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VERDEMONT AREA,
AND ADOPTING THE FOURTH (4TH) AMENDMENT TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT.
MOTION B: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AUTHORJZING AND APPROVING THE MAYOR, OR HER DESIGNEE, TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE JANUARY 15, 1993 VERDEMONT LOAN
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
(Communitv Develooment Commission)
MOTION C: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORJZING AND APPROVING THE AGENCY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE JANUARY IS, 1993 VERDEMONT
LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
----------------- ----------------- ---------------~-------------------- ---------------------------~-------------------------- -- -------------------------- - - --------------------------------
Contact Person(s): Maggie Pacheco Phone: (909) 663-1044
Project Area(s) Verdemont Area Ward(s): 5"
Supporting Data Attached: [;7] Staff Report [;7] Rcsolution(s) [;7] Agreement(s)/Contract(s) [;7] Map(s) [;7] Letters
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS Amount: $ N/ A Source:
SIGNATURE:
Budget Authority:
t~
.
)'7~
Maggie Pac
#~}L
1/J 1/03
EC 0 NOM I C D EVE LOP MEN TAG E N C Y REPORT
----_.~--------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------.-.- ----------------------. -----------------------------_.-. -----------------------------.----- ------------------.
Amendment to 1993 Citv/Al!encv Verdemont Loan Al!reement
and Public Hearinl! to Consider a Proposed Increase
to the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee (VIF)
BACKGROUND/CURRENT ISSUE:
A. Citv/Al!encv Verdemont Loan Al!reement
In January 1993, the Agency loaned the City $1,908,063.68, at the rate of 5% per annum ("1993 Loan
Agreement"), using funds from the State College Redevelopment Project Area to fund certain
necessary Verdemont public improvements. The improvements funded with the Agency loan,
coupled with other Community Facility District (CFD) funds, included, but were not limited to the
following: Storm Drain on Chestnut Avenue and Debris Basin; Box Culvert at Palm Avenue and
Kendall Drive; Traffic Signal at Palm Avenue and Kendall Drive; Right-of-Way improvements along
Palm A venue; incidental costs associated with the infrastructure and various other related
infrastructure improvements.
Under the 1993 Loan Agreement, the City was required to repay the Agency the principal amount of
the loan, together with interest, on each January 15 commencing on January 15, 1994. The source of
repayment would come from the City's collection of any and all development fees it levies against
any new development within the Verdemont Area. Presently, the outstanding balance on the loan is
$1,730,870.03. There was no Loan Term applicable to this 1993 Loan Agreement. Staff proposes
that the 1993 Loan Agreement be amended to reflect the following: (I) City to repay annually
combined principal and interest payments of $224,155.58, at the same rate (5%), until fully repaid by
May 1,2013; (2) the source of repayment would come from the first $1,500 of the VIF and other
minor fees such as the Chestnut drainage fee and Palm Box Culvert traffic fee ("other fees") (any
increase to the VIF will be retained by the City for other improvements as described in the attached
Exhibit 2), and (3) City shall have the right to prepay the Agency Loan without penalty at any time.
Additionally, when the Agency, School District, City and Water Department have concluded their
discussions and negotiations with regard to the collection of CFD fees pertaining to the 1994
Mitigation Agreement and the Agency-owned Bice and Glazier properties, Staff will return to the
Commission/Mayor and Common Council with a Second Amendment to the 1993 Loan Agreement
which will detail the additional fees contemplated to be levied on the Glazier and Bice properties and
the manner in which those fees will be distributed to the Agency, City and Water to assist with the
repayment of the Verdemont Loan, to the City to fund the Fire Station and other public
improvements, and to the Water Department to make them whole for the $1 million land value they
sold to the District in 1994 for the development of the Cesar Chavez School.
B. VIF Public Hearinl! Increase
In response to concerns of residents relative to the lack of certain infrastructure items within the street
rights-of-way, in December of 1989, the Mayor and Common Council enacted emergency ordinances
to effectively implement the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee (VIF) Program. Along with this action,
_________________________________________n_.__________________________________.+_._________________+_____________n________.__ ____________________________n.__+_________________________------.---
P:\CDBG Dcpt\Maggic\Drall Docs\03-04-07 Vcrdcmonl Amend No I COC ItcmYer MP.doc COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04/07/2003
Agenda Item Number: /(j33
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Amendment to Verdemont Loan Agreement
Page 3
Resolution 90-2 was adopted setting the VIF at $7,375 per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and over
$30 million of right-of-way and public facility improvements were identified as being needed in the
Verdemont Area. This emergency ordinance was extended and on March 19, 1990, Ordinance MC-
707 was formally adopted which added Chapter 15.73 to the Municipal Code. Under this Chapter,
the VIF should be reviewed and amended at least annually, or more often as may be necessary, and
said increase or decrease shall be established by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council.
Additionally, Resolution 90-253 was adopted as a modification to Resolution 90-2. This later
resolution deleted all of the water system work from the program and reduced the fee to $6,068 EDU,
with projected annual increases of 15% for the first three (3) years, and 10% for the next two (2)
years thereafter. In January of 1991, Resolution 91-9 was adopted based on the First Amendment to
the Engineer's Report and had the effect of increasing the fee to $6,976. On March 2, 1992
Resolution 92-87 was adopted and had the effect of once again increasing the fee, this time to a level
of $7,699. On February 20, 1995, Resolution No. 95-40 was adopted by the Mayor and Common
Council decreased the VIF to $1,500 in order to encourage development and provide for the City to
be responsible for accomplishing many of the needed improvements.
At this time it is proposed that the VIF be increased to $3,000 per EDU and the attached Fourth (4th)
Amendment to the Engineer's Report, entitled, "Development Impact Fees - Verdemont Area" dated
March 27, 2003, has been prepared by the City Engineer together with Agency Special Counsel to
provide supporting evidence for the need to increase the VIF. Essentially, referring to the 4th
Amendment to the Engineer's Report and Exhibit 2, attached, after the monthly repayment of the
Agency loan ($1,730,870), a portion of the VIF would be used by the City to fund first the
Verdemont Fire Station to be located at the 1.6-acre parcel of property located at the northeast corner
of Kendall and Palm A venue for the purpose of providing primary fire service within the Verdemont
Area (or to amortize the repayment of the pending Fire Station Loan) ($1.7 million). The VIF
increase contemplated herein does not take into account the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
of the Fire Station (note: City Administrator will be separately coordinating a meeting to discuss with
the Mayor and Common Council the different approaches that can be explored to fund the O&M);
and if any funds remain from the VIF thereafter, will go to pay other public improvements needed to
facilitate development in the Verdemont Area ($2,134,550).
The VIF does not impact existing homeowners, but will only be applicable to new development
constructed within the Verdemont Area. Therefore, it is recommended that the public hearing be
closed, the Fourth Amendment to the Engineer's Report be adopted, and the fee be increased from
$1,500 to $3,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Not applicable.
-----.-----------------------------------.----------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------.
P:\CDBG Dcpl\Maggie\Drall Docs\03-04-07 Ycrdcmont Amend No I CDC hem Vcr MP,doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04/07/2003
Agenda Item Number: ~
Economic Development Agency Staff Report
Amendment to Verdemont Loan Agreement
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
In preparing Exhibit 2 and the 4th Amendment to the Engineer's Report, assumptions were made
about anticipated development of the Verdemont Area. After reviewing the various land uses within
the boundaries of the Verdemont Area, it was assumed that approximately 2,123 dwelling units
would be constructed over a ten (10) year period, thus producing about $6,369,024.45, (at the VIP
rate of $3,000 ) in revenues which would be used to off-set the projected $18 million in loans, public
right-of-way improvements and public facilities needed in the Verdemont Area. (The $3,000 VIP
will cover the costs of the EDA Loan, Pire Station and other improvements shown on Exhibit 2,
totaling $5,565,420.)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Development Commission and Mayor and Common Council adopt the attached
Resolutions.
---
__________~_________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________ _._______________________________________________________n___________.
P:\CDBG Dcpl\Maggic\Drall Docs\03-04-07 Ycrdcmont Amend No I CDC hem Vcr MP,doc
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04/07/2003
Agenda Item Number: a
EXHIBIT 1
Description of Boundaries
Verdemont Area Infrastructure Fee
(Existing Boundaries)
That portion of the Verdemont Area, delineated by the Verdemont Area Plan adopted by the
Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino on November 17, 1986, and as
further defined in the Engineer's Report of the City's Public Works Department dated January 2,
1990, and approved by Resolution No. 90-2, adopted on January 3, 1990, more particularly
described as follows:
Those portions of the Rancho Muscpiabe, as per plat recorded in Book 1 of Maps, page 24 and
also in Book 7 of Maps, page 23 , records of the County of San Bernardino, State of California;
and also portions of Township I North, Range 4 West and portions of Township 2 North, Range
4 West and portions of Township I North, Range 5 West and portions of Township 2 North,
Range 5 West, all of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian; and portions of the Irvington Land
and Water Company Subdivision as per plat recorded in Book 3 of Maps, page 9, records of said
County; and portions of Devore Tract; as per plat recorded in book 17 of maps, page 79, records
of said County; and the various Tracts and parcels and portions of parcels ofland lying within
the following described line:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of the 1-215 Freeway and the centerline of Palm
A venue;
Thence northeasterly, along said centerline of Palm A venue, to the centerline of Kendall Drive;
Thence, southeasterly, along said centerline of Kendall Drive, to the southwesterly prolongation
of the northeasterly line of Tract No. 15642, as per plat recorded in Book 259 of Maps, pages 90
through 93, records of said County;
Thence northeasterly, southeasterly and southwesterly, along the said southwesterly
prolongation and the boundaries of said Tract No. 15642, and the southwesterly prolongation of
the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 15642, to it's intersection with said centerline of Kendall
Drive:
Thence southeasterly along said centerline, to the northwesterly line of the San Bernardino
County Devil's Creek Flood Control right-of-way;
Thence northeasterly and easterly, along said Flood Control right-of-way, and following its
various courses and distances, to the centerline of Section 8, unsurveyed, of said Township I
North, Range 4 West, as if said Section line was extended across said Rancho Muscupiabe;
Thence north, along said centerline and along the centerline of Section 5, unsurveyed, of said
Township, as if said centerline was extended across said Rancho Muscupiabe, to the northerly
line of said Rancho Muscupiabe, said point also being on the present corporate City Limit Line
of the City of San Bernardino;
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04/07/2003
Agenda Item Number: ~
Thence westerly and northwesterly, along said corporate City Limit Line to an angle point
thereon, said point also being Station M26 of the line of said Rancho Muscupiabe;
Thence northerly, along said line of the Rancho Muscupiabe and said corporate City Limit Line,
to an angle point thereon;
Thence easterly, along said corporate City Limit Line, and leaving said line of the Rancho
Muscupiabe, and following its various courses and distances, to the northeasterly corner of
Section 31 of said Township 2 North, Range 4 West, said point also being the northwesterly
corner of Section 36 of said Township 2 North, Range 5 West;
Thence west, along the north line of said Section 36, and leaving said corporate City Limit Line,
to the northwesterly corner thereof, said point also being the northeasterly corner of Section 35
of said Township;
Thence westerly, along the north line of said Section 35, to a point on the line of said Rancho
Muscupiabe;
Thence northerly and northeasterly, along said line of the Rancho Muscupiabe, and following its
various courses and distances, to an angle point on said corporate City Limit Line;
Thence westerly, along said corporate City Limit Line, and following its various courses and
distances, to the northerly corner of Parcel No.1, Devore Mobile Home Estates, as per
Document No. 168, recorded in Book 7578, page 390, Official Records of said County;
Thence, at right angles to the centerline of Deercrest Drive, within Devore Tract as per plat
recorded in book 17 of maps, page 79, records of said County;
.,Thence southwesterly, along said centerline to the centerline of Grandview Avenue;
Thence northwesterly, along said centerline, to the centerline of Devore Road;
Thence southeasterly, along said centerline, to the centerline of said 1-215 Freeway;
Thence southeasterly, along said centerline, and following its various courses and distances. to
said centerline of Palm A venue and the point of beginning.
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04/07/2003
Agenda Item Number: ~
.
EXHIBIT 2
VERDEMONT INFRASTRUCTURE FEE INCREASE - EDA Loan and Fire Station
(DRAFT dated 3/27/03)
Amount of VI F
Total units
Total VIF- 10 yrs
Annual Debt Svc
SUMMARY OF FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS
$ 3,000.01 EDA Loan $ 1,730,870.00
2,123.00 Fire Station $ 1,700,000.00
$ 6,369,024.45 Other $ 2,134,550.00
$ 636,902.44 Total Imps $ 5,565.420.00
SlImmarv of Puhlic: ImnrnVQmfmt Costs In Verdemont
Principal Annual
Type of Infrastructure Cost Cost
,. 1993 EDA loan $ 1,730,870.00 $ 224,155.58 assumes amortization for
interest rate of
2. Fire Station - State $ 1,700,000.00 $ 199,291.86 assumes amortization for
lnf Bank Loan interest rate of
3. Other Improvements $ 2,134,550.00 $ 213,455.00 assumes amortization for
& Prepayment of Loans interest rate of
Total Costs $ 5,565,420.00 $ 636,902.44
10 years
5%
10 years
3%
10 years
0%
II Summa", of Tntal Annual Cost DIU Public Imnrnvement
Costs per Year to Finance all
Verdemont Improvements
EDA Fire other Imp TOTAL PER Units per Annual
Years Loan Station & Loan Prepay YEAR Year Fee
1 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
2 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
3 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
4 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
5 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
6 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
7 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
B $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
9 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
10 $ 224,155.58 $ 199,291.86 $ 213,455.00 $ 636,902.44 212.30 $ 3,000.01
TOTAL $ 2,241,555.84 $ 1,992,918.61 $ 2,134,550.00 $ 6,369,024.45 2,123.00
DEBT SV
III Calculation of Verrlemont Infrastructure Fee
A. Single Family Units to be Built
Time period within which units expected
Annual SF Units per year
2,123 SF Units
10 years of build out
212.30 per year
B. Total cost for 10 years-
10yrsat
$
636,902.44 per year
10 year cost
Cost per unit
$ 6,369,024.45
$ 3,000 per unit
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 04107/2003
Agenda Item Number:
/(33
i
I
r~
/
~
~
w
w
~
w
~
~
u
~
~
"
~
~
.
~
~
.
"
z
~
w
C
~
~
!
,
,
L__~,
,
"
~"
.,"
""''^
.
IoU
IoU
.....
IoU
D:=
:::s
I-
U
:::s
D:=
I-
'"
g ~
.- .....
'E :z
I'll _
E <(
QI IoU
= D:=
; <(
~ I-
'0 :z
~ 0
u X
IoU
Q
D:=
IoU
>
"
:z
-
I-
'"
-
><
IoU
/
/
/
/
,
,
~
~
~
II
~
,
\"\
/,
,I "
~-
"
~,
/"',
j'
\
\ p
" \
-~ '.
'v
/
/
/
/
/
I
,"J I
i ~ -.: /-J
~~~
.----~-
'/
-~----~.
~/
,/
/'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
~/
"
~-
/~
~
/
/
/
z<
7
\~
RESOLotlON NO.
2
3
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REVISING SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION
95-40 RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
TO BE LEVIED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VERDEMONT AREA, AND
ADOPTING THE FOURTH (4TH) AMENDMENT TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT.
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino (the "City"), on December 4, 1989, adopted an
8
urgency ordinance (MC-690) to establish and authorize a certain infrastructure fee and further
9
on January 3, 1990, adopted an additional urgency ordinance (MC-695) which extended the
10
establishment and authorization of the levy of an infrastructure fee (the "Verdemont
II
Infrastructure Fee") for the purposes of funding the costs of certain right-of-way improvements
12
and public improvements within the Verdemont Area, all as more fully described in the urgency
13
ordinance MC-695; and
14
WHEREAS, in connection with its adoption of the urgency ordinance MC-695, the City,
on January 3, 1990, also adopted Resolution No. 90-2, setting the initial amount of the
15
16
Verdemont Infrastructure Fee; and
]7
WHEREAS, on March 19, 1990, Ordinance MC-707 was adopted to replace the prior
ordinances MC-690 and MC-695 and to add Chapter 15.73 to the Municipal Code dealing with
18
19
the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee; and
20
WHEREAS, on June 25, 1990, Section I of Resolution No. 90-2 was amended by
21
Resolution No. 90-253, revising the amount of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee from $7,375 to
22
$6,068; and
23
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1992, Section 1 of Resolution No. 90-2 was amended by
24
Resolution No. 92-87, revising the amount of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee from $6,976 to
25
$7,699; and
-1-
P:\Clnical Se,.,..ice~ Deptl.\hrgarel Parker\Re~"lution~\2003\03.04-07 Verdemont :'tlution A :\-Ice Rewlutiun.duc
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly advertised and held on February 20, 1995, and
2
the hearing closed and after public comment, Resolution No. 95-40 was adopted to amend
Section I of Resolution No. 90-2 revising the amount of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee from.
3
4
$7,699 to $1,500 and approving the Third Amendment to the Engineer's Report; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly advertised and held on April 7, 2003 and the
5
6
hearing closed and after public comment, Resolution No. _ was adopted to amend Section I
of Resolution No. 90-2 revising the amount of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee from $1,500 to
7
8
$3,000 and approving the Fourth Amendment to the Engineer's Report.
9
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED
BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS
FOLLOWS:
10
11
Section 1.
Section I of Resolution No. 90-2 is hereby amended to read:
12
"SECTION I: Verdemont Infrastructure Fee.
The Verdemont
13
Infrastructure Fee as established pursuant to the urgency ordinance MC-695, as
14
presently found in Chapter 15.73 of the Municipal Code, and as initially set by
15
Resolution No. 90-2 is hereby revised to be set at a fee in the amount equal to
16
$3,000.00 effective sixty (60) days from the date of this Resolution, per
17
Equivalent Dwelling Unit, as said term is defined in the urgency ordinance MC-
18
695 and in the Municipal Code.
19
Said Verdemont Infrastructure Fee shall also be subject to further increase
pursuant to the terms of any subsequent resolutions to be adopted by the Mayor
and Common Council as may be deemed necessary in the best interest of the City.
20
21
22
Said fee makes no provision of any part of the water transmission, distribution,
23
storage or delivery system in the area defined and all water related fees shall be
24
paid per established policy of the City of San Bernardino Water Department.
25
Reimbursement provisions contained in Ordinance MC-I07, relative to right-of-
way improvements, shall not apply to the adjusted fee of $3,000.00."
-2-
r:\C1~rical Scr.ic~, Oepll.\lugnet Parkcr\Rc",lulill",\200JIOJ-04.07 Vcnlemunt :'Ilution A .\1CC Ruolulion.doc
Section 2.
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino do
3
hereby find and determine that the fee as provided in this Resolution does not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service, or facilities for which the fee is imposed, and
further find that "Public Improvements" referred to in the urgency ordinance shall be given first
priority for consideration of funding over the "Right-of-Way Improvements." Specifically, the
2
4
5
6
$3,000 Verdemont Infrastructure Fee shall be placed in a separate fund and shall be used only to
7
fund infrastructure improvements in the Verdemont Area as described and defined in Chapter
8
15.73 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code.
9
Section 3.
The Fourth Amendment to the Engineer's Report, entitled, "Development
Infrastructure Fees - Verdemont Area - March 27,2003," is hereby adopted.
10
11
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption and execution in the
manner as required by the City Charter.
12
/II
13
/II
14
/II
15
/II
16
/II
17
1/1
18 /II
19 /II
20 /II
21 /II
22 /II
23 1/1
24 /II
25 /II
-3-
P:\Cleriul Senlcu Depl\.\hrgaret Parker\ResolutlomU003\03-04-07 Verdemonl :\Iotlon A MCC Resolulion.doc
2
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO REVISING SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION
95-40 RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
TO BE LEVIED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND/OR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE VERDEMONT AREA, AND
ADOPTING THE FOURTH (4TH) AMENDMENT TO THE ENGINEER'S
REPORT.
3
4
5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
6
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
7
, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
day of
8
Absent
Abstain
Nays
Council Members:
Ayes
9
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MC CAMMACK
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
17
day of
,2003.
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
18
19
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
20
Approved as to form and Legal Content:
21
By:
22
23
24
25
-4-
1':\Clerklll Senins D~pl\.\largllrel Pnhr\Resolutions\2003\03-U4-0~ Vcn!cmunl :\Iolion " ,\lee Resolution.doe
FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
VERDEMONT AREA
(VERDEMONT INFRASTRUCTURE FEE PROGRAM)
March 27, 2003
Prepared by
Development Services Department
City Engineer
City of San Bernardino, California
PURPOSE
This Fourth Amendment of the Engineer's Report is the fourth in several anticipated
amendments to the basic report as prepared in January of 1990. These amendments are intended
to update the information contained in the initial Engineer's Report, describe the events that have
taken place in the Verdemont Area and set forth the basis for any increase in the fee associated
with the program. It should also serve to update the anticipated construction schedule as may be
determined from time to time by the Mayor and Common Council.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS
In December of 1989, the Mayor and Common Council enacted emergency ordinances to
effectively implement the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee Program. Along with this prior action,
Resolution No. 90-2 was adopted setting the Fee at $7,375.00 per dwelling unit. This urgency
ordinance was extended and on March 19, 1990, Ordinance MC 707 was formally adopted which
added Chapter 15.73 to the Municipal Code. Additionally, Resolution No. 90-253 was adopted
as a modification to Resolution No. 90-2. This later resolution deleted all of the water system
work from the program and reduced the fee to $6,068.00 per dwelling unit. In January of 1991,
Resolution No. 91-9 was adopted based on the First Amendment to the Engineer's Report and
had the effect of increasing the fee to $6,976.00. On March 2, 1992, Resolution No. 92-87 was
adopted and had the effect of once again increasing the fee, this time to a level of $7,699.00. On
February 20, 1995, Resolution No. 95-40 was adopted which decreased the Verdemont
Infrastructure Fee to $1,500 as further set forth in the Third Amendment to the Engineer's Report
for the reasons described therein. The purpose of the Ordinance was to regulate the use and
development of land so as to assure the new development bears a proportionate share of the cost
of capital expenditures necessary to provide right-of-way improvements and public
improvements within or for the benefit of the Verdemont Area.
To date, the previously established Mello-Roos Communities Facilities District has been
repealed by appropriate actions of the Mayor and Common Council to officially rescind the
Community Facilities District No. 995. All previously issued bonds of the Communities
Facilities District No. 995 have been retired with funds made available to the City through the
sale of vacant properties to the Economic Development Agency of the City of San Bernardino
("EDA"). Such properties were acquired by the City through the foreclosure of the special tax
lien imposed by Communities Facilities District No. 995 on the vacant properties that were
delinquent in the payments thereof. This CFD No. 995 was implemented as a means to allow
projects in the works to cover the cost of the fee that were not anticipated at the outset of the
project. It also provided for the payment of School Fees and involved four (4) developers
holding seven (7) properties at that time.
In late 1990 bonds were sold payable from the special taxes to be paid within the boundaries of
the Communities Facilities District No. 995 and the funds were placed with a fiscal agent.
During 1991, four (4) Tracts were completed and the developers applied for reimbursement for
construction of eligible improvements installed by their efforts. Additionally, the City adopted a
budget plan for additional improvements and advanced funds for construction. In 1994 the
original bonds were refunded and unspent proceeds were utilized to reduce the debt obligations
of such bonds. In 1999 the EDA issued a separate bond payable from the Low and Moderate
03.0..-07 4th Amend 10 Eng Rcp Vcrdcmlllll Agl
2
Income Housing Fund to acquire the remaining properties (Bice and Glazier, and to pay
delinquent taxes on behalf of Dr. Feldkamp) from the City which were foreclosed upon by the
City due to the delinquent special taxes accruing to such properties.
To date, only two (2) single property parcels have pre-paid the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee.
There has been no overwhelming effort by the development community to remit payments of the
Verdemont Infrastructure Fee to avoid future increases and as a result, there is little funding
presently available. After distribution to bond service, cost of issuance, reserve fund, capitalized
interest and payout to the School District, there was an estimated available balance of
$466,000.00 for construction. As of December 1991, a total of $1,893,854.88 in public
improvement projects have been funded and awarded for construction.
In 1994, the then established Communities Facilities District No. 995 was found to be in default
as to several of the larger vacant properties. The City restructured the bond debt as discussed
previously. Additionally, through loans from the EDA in 1993 pursuant to the Verdemont Loan
Agreement and the creation of another assessment district (AD No. 987) funds were obtained for
the completion of street improvements on Palm Avenue from Kendall Drive to Verdemont
A venue, completion of a Traffic Signal at Palm A venue and Kendall Drive and the construction
of a box culvert at Palm Avenue and Cable Creek and the construction of Chestnut Avenue
Storm Drain and Debris Basin. The loan from the EDA provided for all costs associated with the
Chestnut Avenue Storm Drain, one-half of the costs associated with construction of the Palm
Avenue box culvert and traffic signal. The loan total was in the initial principal balance of
$1,908,063.68 and carries an interest rate of 5% per year. The loan is to be repaid, with interest,
as per the 1993 Verdemont Loan Agreement and the proposed Amendment No. I which includes
repayment from the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee. It is proposed that such Verdemont Loan
Agreement with the EDA be restructured (Amendment No. I) as part of the scope being
addressed by this Fourth Amendment to provide for a priority payment to the EDA on a set
amortization of the principal, plus interest thereon, of such loan from the EDA over a ten-year
(10) period of time.
In total, over $2,440,000.00 in improvements have been completed in the Verdemont Area in
addition to some limited development of schools, single-family development and other
improvements to the drainage system and street systems.
AMENDMENTS
Per the original Ordinance, the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee would adjust each year to reflect
changes in construction costs, wages, overall project costs, construction completed and changes
in the land use in the designated area. As originally proposed, the fee would have an adjustment
of 15% for each of the first three years and 10% per year for the next two years. However, AB
1600 requires that fees be adjusted only in accordance with actual costs. Chapter 15.73 of the
Municipal Code establishing the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee provide for adjustment as often as
necessary with appropriate action by the Mayor and Common Council and as supported by staff
analysis of the costs.
California overall had experienced a significant downturn in the economy beginning in 1991. As
a result, the City of San Bernardino has seen development drop to one-fourth the level prior to
03-04-0i 4\h Amend IU Eng Rcp Vcrdcmonl Agr
3
the economic downturn. Many of the projects were under construction and fully funded prior to
the downturn and have now been completed. As noted in previous sections of this Fourth
Amendment to the Engineer's Report, several of the developments that formed the Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District No. 995 were unable to commence construction of their projects
and have since gone into default. This required the restructuring of the previously issued bonds
that were supported by the special taxes levied within the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District, in addition to the acquisition by the EDA of certain foreclosed parcels within the former
boundaries of said District. Except for the completion of tracts already funded and the
development of the "Feldkamp" parcel within the former Communities Facilities District, there
has been no significant development in the area and virtually no revenues generated by the
Verdemont Infrastructure Fee. The property commonly known as the "Glazier" property which
was acquired by the EDA in 1999 from the City is presently scheduled to transfer title to two
residential single-family homebuilders for the construction of 107 single-family units plus the
construction of up to 5 acres of a neighborhood park. The third property acquired by the EDA in
1999 known as the "Bice" property is severely impacted by the lack of a suitable final tract map,
the designation of the "Bice" property as critical habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
and the requirement for numerous flood control and street realignment projects as a condition of
development.
Several developers representing the vacant land holdings, existing developers with projects in the
area and other interested parties have once again contacted the City to express interests to initiate
development activities within the Verdemont Area. Based upon improvements in the general real
estate market for single-family residential development within the City and the availability of
low interest rate mortgage financing at this time, the City anticipates that additional demands
will be placed upon the infrastructure needs within the Verdemont Area upon the development of
the presently proposed projects. The current level of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee of$I,500
per equivalent dwelling unit, as established in 1995, is inadequate to address the present
infrastructure needs necessary to serve the Verdemont Area.
An increase in the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee is appropriate at this time and will not adversely
impact the rate of development within the Verdemont Area. After review of the completed
improvements by the City Engineer, it has been determined that although many access, flooding
and circulation problems have been addressed, there are a significant number of other public
improvements that need to be completed in the Verdemont Area that would serve the community
interests for future residents of this Area. However, it should be noted that rapid or uncontrolled
construction, provided the economy continues its rate of recovery and assuming the continued
all-time low mortgage interest rates, could require increased adjustments in the Verdemont
Infrastructure Fee to address the needs in future years. In addition, conditions may be imposed
upon developers within the Verdemont Area for the construction of additional infrastructure
components or right-of-way improvements which may, out of necessity, allow for such
impositions to be considered as a payment in lieu of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee at the
discretion of the Mayor and Common Council.
It is estimated that without further adjustment, the $1,500.00 fee will generate $3,184,500 in
revenue to address some of the goals of the ordinance which set forth in excess of $22 million of
public improvements needed for the Verdemont Area. However, the proposed increase of the
Verdemont Infrastructure Fee to $3,000.00 with the projected number of residential dwelling
OJ-O~.07 4th Ameno 10 lOng Rep Verdcmont Agr
4
units of approximately 2,123 to be built within the next 10 years should generate approximately
$6,369,024 (see Exhibit 2 of Staff Report and page 5 of this report) to pay the principal and
interest of any financial obligations incurred or to be incurred by the City in the provision of the
Public Improvements. Nevertheless, even at this level of a fee, there is a funding deficit upwards
of $12,000,000 which may ultimately be needed to complete the other needed improvements.
The primary funding goals of the City through the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee are the
repayment of the EDA 1993 Verdemont Loan Agreement and the proposed financing of a new
Verdemont Fire Station which is anticipated to be funded through a State of California
Infrastructure Bank loan. If the number of single-family homes developed decreases to 1,41 I
during the next 10 years, the City will have adequate funds to pay the annual debt service
obligation on both loans but the City will not be able to undertake any further infrastructure
projects unless the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee is increased or the annual number of newly
constructed homes increases. On the other end of the spectrum, if the presently estimated
number of 2,123 single-family homes are developed in the next 10 years, not only will the two
loans be repaid but there will be upwards of $2, I 34,550 of additional funds available to be used
($213,455 per year) for optional repayments of either of the loan above or to undertake
permissible Public Improvements and Right-of-Way Improvements under the Ordinance.
Further, it is the desire of the Mayor and Common Council to give preference in funding to the
"Public Improvements" as noted in the Ordinance. The development community will be
addressing some if not all of the right-of-way improvements as conditions of development and
the City presently anticipates a need for the public improvements requirements set forth in the
Ordinance to be addressed through development conditions of approval.
The anticipated projects and the currently estimated capital costs and financing costs for each
such Public Improvements and Right-of-Way Improvements within the Verdemont Area are set
forth below. (Note: This is also shown on Exhibit 2 of the Staff Report.)
Principal Annual Interest
Type of Infrastructure Cost Cost Term Rate
I. 1993 EDA Loan Agreement $1,730,870 $224,155.58 10 Years 5%
2. Fire Station - State Infrastructure
Bank Loan $1,700,000 $199,291.86 10 Years 3%
3. Other Improvements and
Prepayment of Loans $2,1 34,550 $213.455 10 Years 0%
TOTAL $5.565.420 $636.902.44
CONCLUSION
It is the intent of the City of San Bernardino to continue to stimulate development within the City
and it is believed that this can be accomplished within the Verdemont Area with the proposed
increase in the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee. The Verdemont Infrastructure Fee was originally
established to ensure that certain improvements were completed in a timely manner. Several
03-04.07 4th Am~nd \0 En!; R~p Vcrdcmonl ^gr
5
projects have been completed in the Verdemont Area and the circulation system, access points
and storm drain protection systems are greatly improved. New development will still be
conditioned to install improvements adjacent to their projects and such other improvements as
deemed necessary for orderly growth. Although the increased infrastructure fee will generate
significant revenue for some necessary improvements, it remains inadequate even at this level to
fully address all of the infrastructure needs in the Verdemont Area. Therefore, in accordance
with the original urgency ordinance and Chapter 15.73 of the Municipal Code, annual reviews
must be made each year as to the amount of the Verdemont Infrastructure Fee and the remaining
infrastructure requirements that were used to finance many of the then needed Public
Improvements and Right-of-Way Improvements needed to accommodate development. At this
time the primary concern within the Verdemont Area is the necessity to obtain funds for the
construction of a Fire station that was originally anticipated in the initial version of the
Engineer's Report from 1990 and to repay the 1993 Loan Agreement.
03-04.07 4th Amend [0 Eng Rcp VcrdcmQnl Agr
6
RESOLUTioN NO.
2
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
MA YOR, OR HER DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO.1 TO
THE JANUARY 15, 1993 VERDEMONT LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California (the "City") IS a municipal
8
corporation and a charter city duly created and existing pursuant to the Constitution and the
9
laws of the State of California; and
10
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the
11
City of San Bernardino (the "Agency"), is a redevelopment agency, a public body, corporate
12
and politic of the State of California, organized and existing pursuant to the Community
13
Redevelopment Law (Part I of Division 24) commencing with Section 33000 of the Health and
14
Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 1993, the Mayor and Common Council and Community
15
16
Development Commission approved the Verdemont Improvement Loan Agreement ("1993
Loan Agreement") by and between the Agency and the City whereby the Agency agreed to loan
17
the City the sum of $1,908,063.68 for the purpose of constructing certain public improvements
18
in the Verdemont Area; and
19
WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire to amend the 1993 Loan Agreement
20
("Amendment No. I ") to amortize the loan over a ten (10) year period and to specify the
revenue source the City will utilize to repay the loan to the Agency.
21
22
1//
1//
/1/
23
24
25
-1-
P:\CDBG Dept\\bggie\Dnft 000\03-04-07 Verdemolll .\Iotion B 'Ice Re~uJuliun Ver \IP.dOf
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED
2 BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AS
3 FOLLOWS:
4
Section I.
The Mayor and Common Council hereby approve Amendment No. 1 to
5 the 1993 Loan Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
6
Section 2.
The Mayor, or her designee, is hereby authorized to execute Amendment
7
No. I on behalf of the City in substantially the form attached hereto, together with such
8
nonsubstantive changes therein as may be approved by the Mayor and City Attorney.
9
Section 3.
This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption and execution in the
10 manner as required by the City Charter.
III
11
III
12
III
13
III
14
III
15
III
16
III
17
III
18 III
19 III
20 III
21 III
22 III
23 III
24 III
25 III
-2-
P;\CI~riuJ Sen;t(5 Depl\.\brganl P~rker\Re.olulion.\2003\03-04-07 Verdemont ~1otlun B ~ICC Kesolutlun.doc
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE
MAYOR, OR HER DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. I TO
THE JANUARY IS, 1993 VERDE MONT LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
3
4
5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
6 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof. held on the
7
day of
, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
8
Council Members:
Ayes
Nays
Abstain
Absent
9
ESTRADA
LONGVILLE
MCGINNIS
DERRY
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MC CAMMACK
10
II
12
13
14
15
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
16
17
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
,2003.
18
19
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
20
Approved as to Form and Legal Content:
21
By:
lJtt~ ?/~
(J"ty Attorney
22
23
24
25
-3-
P:\COBG D~pl\.\laggje\Orarl DUC!iI03-04.07 Verdemun! :\-Iolion B ;\\CC Reiiolutju" Ver \IP.duc
AMENDMENT NO.1
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
1993 LOAN AGREEMENT VERDEMONT IMPROVEMENTS
WITH THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
This Amendment No. I, is dated as of April 7 2003, and is an amendment to the Loan
Agreement Verdemont Improvements (the "Verdemont Loan Agreement") by and between the
Economic Development Agency of the City of San Bernardino (the "Agency" which is known as
and sometimes referred to as the "Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino") and
the City of San Bernardino (the "City"), dated January IS, 1993, which amends the Verdemont
Loan Agreement as hereinafter set forth.
1. Agencv Loan, Section I. (c) of the Verdemont Loan Agreement shall be replaced
with the following:
(c) The principal and interest payments on this Loan shall be made from funds
collected pursuant to those sources identified in Section 2 hereof. The principal of and interest
on this Loan shall be due and payable in annual installments commencing on May I, 2004, in the
combined principal and interest amount of $224,255.58 payments which are collected prior to
each annual payment due date on this Loan shall be paid to the Agency within 30 days after
receipt thereof by the City and shall be considered as a credit towards the next annual principal
and interest payment on this Loan when received by the Agency. Any payments not made as
scheduled shall continue to bear interest at the rate set forth herein until all outstanding principal
and interest have been repaid to the Agency in whole. The City shall have the right to prepay all
or part of the Loan plus accrued interest at any time and from time to time without penalty.
2. Repayment; this Section 2 of the Loan Agreement shall be replaced with the
following:
The City agrees to repay the Agency for the Loan created pursuant to this Amendment
No. I from and to the extent funds are available to the City through the levy of the Verdemont
Infrastructure Fee (VIF), Chestnut Drainage Fee and Palm Box Culvert Traffic Signals Fee
("Other Fees") for properties developed within the Verdemont Area (Exhibit I). As per the
Verdemont Loan Agreement, any and all developer fees received prior to January IS, 1993, are
to be paid immediately to the Agency as a credit to the note, including all developer fees
thereafter.
From and after the date of this Amendment No. I, all payments of the VIF equal to either
(i) $1,500 as of the date of the Amendment No. I, or (ii) in the event the VIF is increased to
amount greater than $ 1 ,500, the first $ 1 ,500 of such increase to the VIF collected by the City
from all new development within the Verdemont Area of the City, together with the Other Fees
as provided above, shall be paid to the Agency as a payment under this Amendment No. I.
All other provisions of the Verdemont Loan Agreement shall rcmain in full force and
affect.
I
OJ-()~.07 Am~[](j ~o, 110 Ycrdcmont loan A~ml\
This Amendment No. 1 shall take effect from and after the date as first above set forth.
City of San Bernardino
By:
Title: Judith Valles, Mayor
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San
Bernardino
By:
Title: Gary Van Osdel, Executive Director
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
By:
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~,
2
RESOLUTION ~ ~ u
\.
2
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING
AND APPROVING THE AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE JANUARY 15, 1993
VERDE MONT LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino, California (the "City") is a municipal
8
corporation and a charter city duly created and existing pursuant to the Constitution and the
9
laws of the State of California; and
10
WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino
11
(the "Commission") on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino (the
"Agency"), is a redevelopment agency, a public body, corporate and politic of the State of
12
13
California, organized and existing pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part I of
14
Division 24) commencing with Section 33000 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of
15
California (the "Act"); and
16
WHEREAS, on January 15, 1993, the Mayor and Common Council and the Commission
approved the Verdemont Improvement Loan Agreement (" 1993 Loan Agreement") by and
between the Agency and the City whereby the Agency agreed to loan the City the sum of
$1,908,063.68 for the purpose of constructing certain public improvements in the Verdemont
17
18
19
20
Area; and
21
WHEREAS, the Agency and the City desire to amend the 1993 Loan Agreement
22
("Amendment No. I") to amortize the loan over a ten (10) year period and to specify the
revenue source the City will utilize to repay the loan to the Agency.
23
24
/1/
25
/1/
-1-
P:\ClericaJ S~r"ir~, ()ept\:\lng~rel Parker\Re5oluliuns\1003\OJ-04-07 Verdemonl :\-lotion C coe Re\olutiun.do(
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
2 THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
3 ORDER, AS FOLLOWS:
4
Section 1.
The Commission hereby approves Amendment No. 1 to the 1993 Loan
5 Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
6
Section 2.
The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized to execute
7
Amendment No. I on behalf of the Agency in substantially the form attached hereto, together
8
with such non substantive changes therein as may be approved by the Executive Director and
9 City Attorney.
Section 3.
10
//1
11
/1/
12
/1/
13
/1/
14
/1/
IS
//1
16
/1/
17
/1/
18 /1/
19 /1/
20 //1
21 /1/
22 //1
23 /1/
24 /1/
25 /1/
The Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
-2-
P:\Cleriul Senlce~ Oepl\.\1argaret ParkerIResulutions\2003\OJ.04.01 Verdemuol Y1011on C CDe Ruolution.doc
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE AGENCY EXECUTIVE
2 DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE JANUARY 15, 1993
VERDEMONT LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT
3 AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Community
5 Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting
6 thereof, held on the day of
7
COMMISSION MEMBERS: AYES
8
ESTRADA -
9
LONGVILLE
10
McGINNIS
II
DERRY
12
SUAREZ
13
ANDERSON
14
MCCAMMACK
15
16
17
, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
Secretary
18
19
20
21
22
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this
day of
,2003.
JUDITH V ALLES, Chairperson
Community Development Commission
of the City of San Bernardino
24
23 Approved as to form and
legal content:
25 By: ~~1~~9,
26 Agen y Counsel I
27
28
-3-
,
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JAMES F PEI>MAN
CITY A TTORN[r
April 7,2003
Sent By Facsimile
1\1r. ,"1ark Sheppard, Staff Vice Presldcnt
Business Industry Association of Southern California
Baldy View Chapter
87] I :Y1onroe Court, Suite B
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9] 730
Dear Mr Sheppard
Thank you for attending tonight's Mayor and Common CouncIi meeting As you know, since
you were present when Ihls agenda Item concerning the proposed Increase In the Verdemont
Infrastructure Fee came before the tv1Jyor and Common CounCil thiS evening, the publiC heanng on
thiS matter was continued for fourteen (14) days to April 21,2003 The public heaflng now set for
that day IS scheduled to commence at 7 00 P m
The purpose of th" wntten notification being faxed to you IS to prOVide you, out of an
abundance of caution, wllh the notification requested by you In your letter to the Clly Clerk dated
February] 0,2003
ThiS wIiI also confirm our telephone conversation earlier today, whcreIn I confirmed With
you Ihat you now have phYSically received aliaI' the Wfltten Information, data, etc required by
Government Code 9660 16(a) The Information which you have now received IS mOre Ihan ten (10)
davs before said publiC heaflng ]1 may also be vleweJ In the Clly Clerk's Office
If you have anv questions, please contact 1\'15 Maggie Pacheco DCPLlI) Dlfcctor of the
[conomlc Development Agency, at (909) 663-2277
cc Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Maggie Pacheco, Deputy Director of ED!\
JOI,,!d allY," ,,'
'~'
eel
[1,,,,0., . C"',,:
300 NORTH 0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 924180001 . (909) 3845355
-:If ,3:2-
?-fo 3-
APR-07-0J 10 57
909948963 :
P 02
<-964
Job-755
0pr-07-03 lO:51A BIA-Baldy View Cllapter
9099489531
P.OZ
n
BIR
Baldy View Chapter
Aprd 7, 200\
I III\I!III!:_: 1.1d(I-I'\ '\''''1 ,_,1;1"1
, " I \.. III .., I II ( .', I,I "I 111.1 II ~ ,
The llonor'-lhlc ludlth V~lles
Mayor, City of S~n Bernaldino
300 NOl1h [) Streel
S~IlIJenwldlllO, Ci\ <)241 ~
x711 MI'IHUC ('IIMI Sud~ l::)
l{;\nrllll ('IIL'lrJlllll8-:l.
(.i1i11111l1:\ ljl 7 J(I
1)lllj()\)~Ii." IR,q
h ()()I) IJ4K 4(1\)
wv.Wbi;tl1[1lid ((Ill!
Dear Mayor V~lles:
The purpose of this lelley IS lu l,xpress the Lluilding Inuustry AssoClatlun B~ldy View Cl13pler\
opposition to the propused incre:lse to the City OrS'll1 Bcrn~rdJno's Development Impact Fcc
(D1F) lIlthe Veldelllollt Area
n,e Mitigatinn Fee Acl (Guv. Code, s 66000 et seq.) "sels forth procedures I,,, protesting the
imposition ,,['Iees and other ll1onct:lry ex,Ktions Imposed on ~ developmenl by ~ local <lgency,
.As Its leglslall\e h,story evinces, the Aet was passed by the Legislature 'UI rcspome to conCerns
amung developers that local agencies were Imposing developmenl kes for purposes unrelated to
deve!opnlent pi oJecls,' [CItations.]" (Ehrlicli v. ('Iry nf(ul\,(T Clly (I9\1~) 12 (ul 4'" 854,/'>64 ):
there lore, we raIse the Issue whether the fee, in quesl1un arc related to the Impact c,lused hy
futllle projected develllpmenl. Government Code Section (,(,001 ('I) provides 'l> follows. "(~) III
any actlun cst:tbl1slllng, rnere~sing. or Imposing a fee as a cllndltlon of approvJI of a
development prOject hy a local agency. the local agency ,h~1I do all of the foliowlllg: (I)
Identify the purrusc oflhe J"ce, (2) luentlfy the use to wlllch the fee is to he pul.... (:1) Determine
how there IS ~ reasonable relatIOnship between the fee's use and the tyre uf ckvclopment project
on which the fee IV imposeu (4) Detelllline how there is a reason'lblc relauonship hetween the
need lor the rublle facilIty and the type ur development project on which the fee \s imposed"
rhe question i, whether the City h~s shown the re~son:lble rel~tionship requi, ed under
Guvernment Code sectHJIl ()/J001, suhdivision (a)(:1) ~nd (4).
We bel1eve Ih.lI Ih" pruposeu increase asks all future reSidentIal develupment tl' underwrite the
cosioI' lIlfr'-lstructure that wIll also benefillhe currently existing residents of the Verdemont
Area, The dl)lumentJt;onthilt we h~ve been sent uoe, not show a ealcubtioll for the sh~re of the
proposed fire statioll th~tls to be palll by the eXIstlllg reSidents Tn add:tlon. the dllcull1entation
Jues not ,how a prupu,cu inne'-lse III the development impact fee to be paId by any future
Cnt1l111CrClal ;'1llJ ll1Justrial dl.:vcloplnent
APR-S7-03 10.57
9G99~B9EJ:
P OJ
R-96~
.,b-'65
Apr-07-03 lO:51A BIA-Baldy Vlew Chapter
90Y9'1a9631
P_03
M,'yor JUlhlh Valles
April 7,2003
Page 2
Sl\(1uld Ihis fee he al1opted, we will "dlilse any ofOllr membcrs conSidering huildlng inlhc
Verdenlonl A Ie:! 10 pay this fee un,ler protesl. as provllkd in stale IJw,
We believc that "mure equitable solution to this ISSllc would he to apportion the tolal cost oflhe
proposed fire ,,1.;1lIU11 on a pruportJonal O:'ISIS between eXisting residents Hnd futLlre res.idential,
cOlnmcrcidl, and lnduslrwl devt']opln(:J~t. ilntI thcn to fOT1n an 3sseSSnH.:nt dIstrict to cuver the
costs to he borne hy l'xlsting TeSldcnts.
Tn addition, thl B1A would support" provision "II owing developers 10 build thc mfraslructure,
receive creJlt (owaHl ..my fees, amJ he reimhursed as the city n~CCIVes impact fees ~llld
assessments for Ihe lllfraslruclure. In closing, Willie the 81A IS extremely "IPp')l1lve (1fcl1~bling
the C0l1strudH1I1 of 011Y infrastnlCnlre requlrcd to suppurl new develuPlncnt, W~ nela."vc that thIS
proposal c311s for Ilew JCvc!opll1enllu p~y signifiC:lnlly more thalllts t:1ir sh;lI~
If you have <lny questions, pk3se do nol hesiTate to Clllllad me.
Sincere~. /~
/~---/
./ /
M3rk SheppHrd
Director, GOvcflUl1Cllt A flaIrs
Cc: Memons, San Bernardino CIty Cl)uneil
S"nllernardirHl Clly Attorney .Iumes Pl'nl113n
Mr. Tlln S"hl\ l'conomll Develupmellt Agency
M'. Maggie I'acheco, Economic !Jevelopmelll AgCTlCY
Frank Willie1JlIs, 13JN13"ldy View Execclilvc Officer
,
n
BIA
Baldy View Chapter
April 7, 2003
Building Industry ASS(Kiatilln
of Southern California. Inc.
The Honorable Judith Valles
Mayor, City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
8711 Monroe COUft, Suite B
Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730
ph 909.945.1884
fx 909.948.9631
www.biabuild.com
Dear Mayor Valles:
The purpose of this letter is to express the Building Industry Association-Baldy View Chapter's
opposition to the proposed increase to the City of San Bernardino's Development Impact Fee
(OIF) in the Verdemont Area.
The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, S 66000 et seq.) "sets forth procedures for protesting the
imposition of fees and other monetary exactions imposed on a development by a local agency.
As its legislative history evinces, the Act was passed by the Legislature 'in response to concerns
among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to
development projects.' [Citations.]" (Ehrlich v. City a/Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854,864.);
therefore, we raise the issue whether the fees in question are related to the impact caused by
future projected development. Government Code Section 66001 (a) provides as follows: "(a) In
any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a
development project by a local agency...the local agency shall do all of the following: (I)
Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.... (3) Determine
how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project
on which the fee is imposed. (4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed."
The question is whether the City has shown the reasonable relationship required under
Government Code section 66001, subdivision (a)(3) and (4).
We believe that this proposed increase asks all future residential development to underwrite the
cost of infrastructure that will also benefit the currently existing residents of the Verdemont
Area. The documentation that we have been sent does not show a calculation for the share of the
proposed fire station that is to be paid by the existing residents. In addition, the documentation
does not show a proposed in~e ~e~'n h~deveJopment impact fee to be paid by any futu re .'
. I d' d . I d tnl reo," Record I' . . - -
commercia an III ustna ttYrIi ill, DevCrns Mtg: Ai/7 / bJ ('~ <Lu.f.wC~
1)~J;;t ~
t . '
b~..~~ tSrA ~.~ ZZ:~"'_
re A~e"da Item _ :.e33 (~ Qd.~,;z-W.,
-- I-/h/c'3
::J( . c.f..v...h-
~h.~.
City Clerk/COC Secy
... . . .. ... City of San Bernartljnn . .. .. .
A1\ Altillalc pj the :\atlOllal ASSlll'l;llll\n 01 I lOin!..' Builder" alH:rmC l~1norl1la Rulldlllg [ndu:,lry A...SOlldtlOl1
Mayor Judith Valles
April 7, 2003
Page 2
Should this fee be adopted, we will advise any of our members considering building in the
Verdemont Area to pay this fee under protest, as provided in state law.
We believe that a more equitable solution to this issue would be to apportion the total cost of the
proposed fire station on a proportional basis between existing residents and future residential,
commercial, and industrial development, and then to form an assessment district to cover the
costs to be borne by existing residents.
In addition, the BIA would support a provision allowing developers to build the infrastructure,
receive credit toward any fees, and be reimbursed as the city receives impact fees and
assessments for the infrastructure. In closing, while the BIA is extremely supportive of enabling
the construction of any infrastructure required to support new development, we believe that this
proposal calls for new development to pay significantly more than its fair share.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Mark Sheppard
Director, Government Affairs
Cc: Members, San Bernardino City Council
San Bernardino City Attorney James Penman
Mr. Tim Sabo, Economic Development Agency
Ms. Maggie Pacheco, Economic Development Agency
Frank Williams, BWBaldy View Executive Officer
,
1( /:Aj t3
~1t.Ac J..Jv~,,-<J....
a Item "e 3 ::L J ' ~
Cf::~ ),;;. a~~
~ity Clerk/COC Seey
City of San Bernardini
, '"t~ RICDI'lIIt
I DevCrn. Mtg:
n
BIA
"
Baldy View Chapter
April 21, 2003
Building Industry' Association
of SOlllhern California. Inc.
The Honorable Judith Valles
Mayor, City of San Bernardino
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
8711 Monroe Court, Suite B
Rancho Cucamonga.
California 91730
ph 909.945.1884
fx 909.948.9631
www.biahuild.com
Dear Mayor Valles:
The purpose of this letter is to express the Building Industry Association-Baldy View Chapter's
opposition to the proposed increase to the City of San Bernardino's Development Impact Fee
(DIF) in the Verdemont Area.
The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, S 66000 et seq.) "sets forth procedures for protesting the
imposition of fees and other monetary exactions imposed on a development by a local agency.
As its legislative history evinces, the Act was passed by the Legislature 'in response to concerns
among developers that local agencies were imposing development fees for purposes unrelated to
development projects.' [Citations.]" (Ehrlich v. City afCulver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854,864.);
therefore, we raise the issue whether the fees in question are related to the impact caused by
future projected development. Government Code Section 66001 (a) provides as follows: "(a) In
any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a
development project by a local agency...the local agency shall do all of the following: (I)
Identify the purpose of the fee. (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.... (3) Determine
how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project
on which the fee is imposed. (4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed."
The question is whether the City has shown the reasonable relationship required under
Government Code section 66001, subdivision (a)(3) and (4).
We believe that this proposed increase asks all future residential development to underwrite the
cost of infrastructure that will also benefit the currently existing residents of the Verdemont
Area. The documentation that we have been sent does not show a calculation for the share of the
proposed fire station that is to be paid by the existing residents. In addition, the documentation
does not show a proposed increase in the development impact fee to be paid by any future
commercial and industrial development. Therefore, we believe that the legally required nexus
has not been established.
.'\n AllilialC 111' [h\.' :.L!tillIlal i\ssu\.."I;ttioll of Home Builders alld the California Building IndusLry As\ociatio!l
j(3L
Mayor Judith Valles
April 7, 2003
Page 2
Should this fee be adopted, we will advise any of our members considering building in the
Verdemont Area to pay this fee under protest, as provided in state law.
We believe that a more equitable solution to this issue would be to apportion the total cost of the
proposed fire station on a proportional basis between existing residents and future residential,
commercial, and industrial development, and then to form an assessment district to cover the
costs to be borne by existing residents.
In addition, the BIA would support a provision allowing developers to build the infrastructure,
receive credit toward any fees, and be reimbursed as the city receives impact fees and
assessments for the infrastructure. In closing, while the BIA is extremely supportive of enabling
the construction of any infrastructure required to support new development, we believe that this
proposal calls for new development to pay significantly more than its fair share.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
;l
/
~/
_.- /~ ~
~
Mark Sheppard
Director, Government Affairs
Cc: Members, San Bernardino City Council
San Bernardino City Attorney James Penman
Mr. Tim Sabo, Economic Development Agency
Ms. Maggie Pacheco, Economic Development Agency
Frank Williams, BIAlBaldy View Executive Officer
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
1Z-~2 A
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): J,"2- \-03 Item #
Vote: Ayes 1-:"), 1).- <1 Nays 'i
Change to motion to amend original documents: \Zl:%(, A I
Resolution #
"'J'x') ?, - '11
Absent ~
Abstain ,.(:r
PA~6"3 2.o"-C nON '~
Reso. # On Attachments: - Contract term: -
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: ~.
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY
Date Sent to Mayor: .t\ - Z?f D ~~
Date of Mayor's Signature: A-')'t-<:;:-,
Date of ClerklCDC Signature: 1\ -?"\ -0 ~
Date e
ent for Signature:
See Attached:
See Attached:
ched:
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distribu/ted to:
City Attorney
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance
Dev. Services
Public Services
Water
Police
Notes:
NullNoid After:-
By: -
Reso. Log Updated:
Seal Impressed:
v'"
./
Date Returned:
Yes ,/ No By
Yes No .,/ By
Yes No V By
Yes No ,/ By
Yes No/ B
EDA
./
MIS
Finance
Others:
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term, etc.)
Ready to File: ~ Date: ~
Revised 01/1210 I
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): 4- 'L\ --0 <, Item #
Vote: Ayes 1-35-'1 Nays '-I
,
2'3'2-3 Resolution # LC03~CfS
Abstain -9- Absent .G-
:.-kt IZco,o COCI200c<'- 10
,
Change to motion to amend original documents:
Reso. # On Attachments:"/ Contract term: --
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: ~
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY
Date Sent to Mayor: 4-2-(,--0':>'
Date of Mayor's Signature: A-~ l1-0'?
Date of ClerklCDC Signature: It - ;) i -0::':,
Null/Void After: -
By: -
Reso. Log Updated:
Seal Impressed:
v
...---
Date Memo/Letter Sent for Signature:
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
See Attached: ,/ Date Returned: '--j-;?Il-03
See Attached:
See Attached:
-'I-?S-o~
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney
Parks & Rec.
/
Dev. Services
Code Compliance
Police Public Services
Water
Notes:
Yes~ No By
Yes No----L.- By
Yes No / By
Yes NO+ By
Yes No y-
EDA
./
MIS
Finance
Others:
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term, etc,)
Ready to File:_
Date:
Revised 01112/01
, .
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): ~ - L\-O~ Item #
Vote: Ayes [-3,5- 'I Nays~
,
lZ.3ZC
Abstain if
."-,fO:E
Change to motion to amend original documents: -
Reso. # On Attachments: - Contract term:
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: ~
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY
Date Sent to Mayor: JI- 'L:3-0~
Date of Mayor's Signature: 4- D-4 <l ::;,
Date of Clerk/CDC Signature: ""\ - ;;; 1 '-0 ~
Date Memo/Letter Sent for Signature:
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
See Attached:
See Attached:
See Attached:
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance Dev. Services
Police Public Services Water
Notes:
Resolution #
c..CL!2C03-\O
Absent ,G-
\Z.t5:S6 ;JZW 3''7S
Null/Void After:
By: -
Reso. Log Updated:
Seal Impressed:
/
./
Date Returned: L{ /7 ~ ! 0 '3
YesL No By
Yes No~ By
Yes No / By
Yes No ;/ By
Yes No/ B
EDA /
MIS
Finance
Others:
BEFORE FILING. REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term. etc.)
Ready to File: ~
Date:
Revised 01/12/01