[00:00:01]
SO I'VE GOT 17, 30, I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER, I'M GOING TO ASK A DEPUTY MAYOR JOHNSON TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HAVE ROCKHOLE AARON MEDINA, PRESIDENT, VICE CHAIRMAN JOHNSON, YEAH, COMMISSIONER FELIX, IF COMMISSIONER BAILEY YOUR COMMISSIONER FOSTER IT.
MEDINA PARR, YEP, BAYFRONT SCIARRA, ATTORNEY, ERIC MESSENGER.
WELL, THANK YOU. SO OUR NEW BUSINESS, GENTLEMEN, IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET
[1. Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget of the Bayfront CRA]
OF THE BAYFRONT SIARA OF ANY SPEAKERS THAT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAN SEEING AND HEARING? THEN I'LL I'LL ASK MADAM CHAIRMAN TO GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS ITEM NUMBER ONE.YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO APOLOGIES.
I'M STANDING IN TONIGHT FOR DEPUTY CITY MAYOR MANAGER JOHN UNICOL BROWN, WHO'S ALSO OBVIOUSLY OUR BAYFRONT ADMINISTRATOR.
SO SINTER REGRETS THAT SHE CAN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING.
BUT JUST TO GO QUICKLY OVER THE BUDGET, THIS IS THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE BAYFRONT. TONIGHT'S ITEM IS MERELY INFORMATIONAL FOR YOU ALL FOR ANY DISCUSSION OR THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE ON THE BUDGET ITSELF, BUT YOU WILL NOT OFFICIALLY BE VOTING ON THIS UNTIL LATER DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS WITH THE REST OF THE CITY BUDGET.
SO IN YOUR PACKETS, YOU HAVE A TWO PAGE DOCUMENT THAT PROVIDED THE LINE ITEM DETAIL FOR THE BUDGET, BUT IN BRIEF I'M GOING TO GO OVER JUST THE THE HIGHLIGHTS.
THERE ARE ONLY A FEW CHANGES TO THE BUDGET COMPARED TO THE CURRENT YEAR.
AS YOU'LL AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE WERE OPERATING UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY AND L.A.
THAT DOES LIMIT WHAT WE DO IN THE BUDGET FOR THE CIA AT PRESENT.
SO JUST VERY QUICKLY, HIGH LEVEL, ONE ITEM THAT HAS CHANGED IS A FAIRLY MINOR INCREASE, BUT IT IS AN INCREASE IN THE LINE ITEM FOR AUDIT COSTS.
YEAH, THE STATE DID PASS A NEW RULE THAT BASICALLY WENT INTO EFFECT LAST YEAR AND SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO DO AN INDEPENDENT SEPARATE AUDIT OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL AUDIT WE DO FOR THE CITY OF THE CITY'S FINANCES.
SO THAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR PRIOR YEAR APPROVED BUDGET, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS. IT WENT UP TO ABOUT 5000.
THAT IS AN ESTIMATE. WE'LL REFINE THAT AS WE AS WE GO FORWARD, GET ACTUAL NUMBERS.
ALSO, THE OTHER THING THAT HAS CHANGED THAT IS PROBABLY WILL NOT CHANGE, BUT THAT IS IN HERE THAT IS WORTH NOTING, IS WE HAVE A LINE ITEM THAT INCLUDES THE ESTIMATED REBATE FOR THE NORTHSHORE AGREEMENT THAT IS IN HERE.
SIMILARLY, IT WAS IN IT'S IN THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AS PROPOSED IN THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. AND THAT IS BASED ON THE AGREEMENT.
NORTHSHORE MEETS THEIR OBLIGATIONS.
AND THAT AMOUNT THAT IS IN HERE IS FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR DOLLARS. BUT AGAIN, THAT WAS IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN TIME FOR THAT TO BE SOMETHING THAT TOOK EFFECT THIS FISCAL YEAR. BUT IT IS THE SAME FOR NEXT YEAR.
AND THAT IS BASED ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CALCULATION THAT THAT WOULD ENSUE THERE TO GET THAT NUMBER.
THE LAST THING THAT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE IS THAT THE WE DO HAVE OUR LAST PAYMENT TOWARD THE 2006 BOND SERIES INCLUDED IN HERE, WHICH IS GOOD NEWS.
WHEN THAT IS DONE, THAT WILL BE THIS IS THE LAST YEAR THAT WE WILL BE PAYING ON THAT.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT IS IN PRINCIPLE.
THERE'S A PRINCIPAL INTEREST PAYMENT LINE ITEM, THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT FOR THIS FINAL YEAR, THREE HUNDRED FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
THE INTEREST IS SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN DOLLARS.
AND OTHER THAN THAT, THE REST OF THE BUDGET INCLUDES OUR TYPICAL VERY SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR VARIOUS LINE ITEMS RELATED TO THINGS WE DO RELATED INSURANCE.
AND THAT'S WHY GET COSTS FOR THESE BOARD MEETINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
YES, I HAD ONE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER PARR, I'M SORRY.
JUST REITERATING, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD JUST SAID, LOOKING AT THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS AND INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE DEBT SERVICE, THE CHANGE FROM 21 TO 22 IS DUE TO THAT 2006 BOND BEING PAID OFF. IS THAT ACCURATE? INCREASED OR DECREASED MONIES GOING OUT AND THAT'S US CREATING THE INCREASE IN OUR
[00:05:03]
RESERVES, CORRECT? YES, I THINK THERE IS.LET ME SEE, WE ALSO HAVE TRANCELIKE THE OUR HOUR, WE'RE ALSO ESTIMATING AN INCREASE IN THE TAXABLE THE VALUES, THE REVENUE THAT'S COMING IN.
AND, YOU KNOW, SINCE OUR EXPENDITURES ARE PRETTY LIMITED AND FIXED, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALSO PART OF THAT CHANGE TO.
IS THERE A STANDARD THAT WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP AS FAR AS THESE RESERVES, NO, OR I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE INTENTIONALLY KEEPING THOSE THERE? I, I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER OFFHAND TO BE TO BE QUICK ABOUT IT, BUT. TECHNICALLY, WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY DOING FOR THE MOST PART IS WE'RE SENDING THE MONEY BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND IN THE COUNTY, SO THE RESERVES WE'RE KEEPING IN HERE, I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH JONES TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S BEEN PLANNING FOR THAT.
BUT IT MAY JUST BE SOMEONE ELSE.
ULTRACAL, SOMETHING SHE'S TALKED ABOUT BEFORE MAY JUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS THERE AS A BUFFER IN CASE THERE'S A NEED.
I KNOW THAT WE DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE NORTH SHORE PROJECT WILL BE. AND SO THAT NUMBER COULD OBVIOUSLY GO UP IF THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT, THAT REBATE, THAT AMOUNT WE HAVE TO PAY COULD GO GO HIGHER. BUT, UM, YEAH, I CAN GET THAT ANSWER FOR YOU IS THE SHORT ANSWER.
MY ONLY THOUGHT IS, IS. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE ANTICIPATING A HIGHER RESERVES NEXT YEAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOME THOUGHTS AS FAR AS IF WE AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND CONTRIBUTE THAT TO PRINCIPLE ON OTHER LOAN, WHATEVER, INSTEAD OF JUST GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND, GO AND PAY DOWN A LOAN WITH ANY OF THAT RESERVE.
WELL, I BELIEVE THAT IS THERE WON'T BE ANY OTHER DEBT.
SO THIS THIS PAYMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING NOW IS THE VERY LAST PAYMENT ON THE ONLY REMAINING DEBT IN THE U.K.
SO WE'LL BE WE'LL BE GOOD TO GO.
AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE ALWAYS TO ONLY HOLD THE MINIMAL WE NEED IN THE RESERVES AND SEND THE REST BACK TO GENERAL FUND AND AND THE COUNTY FOR SURE.
MISSIONARIES, ANYONE ELSE, COMMISSIONER FOSTER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SINCE YOU'RE ON THE OTHER LINE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER BAILEY, YEAH, WHENEVER YOU CHECK, YOU DEFINITELY NO, I WOULD AGREE IF THERE WERE MORE DEBT SERVICE TO PAY IT OFF, AS PARR SAID, BUT DEFINITELY I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU RAISE THAT POINT.
I DO WANT TO GET BACK TO GENERAL.
I KNOW IT'S WHERE IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE.
I AM CURIOUS, TOO. IS IT BEING HELD IN THE INTEREST DRAWING ACCOUNT OR HOW IS IT ARE WE STORING THAT MONEY? I WOULD ALSO HAVE TO CHECK WITH STAFF ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT OFFHAND. THOSE ARE GOOD POINTS.
THE INTEREST DRAWN. YOU KNOW, I'M INTERESTED ABOUT YOUR COMMENT ABOUT IT COULD BE MORE WHEN IT COMES TO NORTH SHORE.
THEY THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXCEED WHAT THE THE PROMISE WAS TO BEGIN WITH, CORRECT? WELL, THAT I'M JUST REFERRING TO WHAT ULTIMATELY DEFINED, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THE VALUE NUMBER THAT WE'RE PULLING IS PULLED FROM THE FISH KIND AND ASSOCIATES STUDY THAT WAS DONE ON THIS PROJECT.
SO THAT WAS THEIR BEST GUESS AS TO WHAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD ULTIMATELY BE VALUED WHEN IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED. SO THAT'S THE COMMERCIAL PIECE TO IT? YES, SIR. OK, YEAH.
YEAH. SO THAT THAT'S WHY I DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT THAT.
COMMISSIONER BAILEY, THE GERMAN.
YEAH, JUST POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I THINK, IN OUR MEETING RECENTLY, MISS SHERMAN, WITH NO JERM THERE AS WELL, AND MISS SMITH 474, YOU'RE SAYING SEVEN THOUSAND.
THAT'S JUST FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ASPECT.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING BEING BUDGET FOR THIS ONE.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE.
THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE BASING IT ON IS A VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, ESTIMATING THAT TO BE A 45 THOUT 45 MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR TAXABLE VALUE FOR JUST THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION ALONE. REDUCED, REDUCED BY OR MODIFIED BY THE BASE VALUE.
SO BASICALLY THE BASE VALUE, THE PROPERTY AT THE START OF THIS WAS EIGHT HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND FORTY DOLLARS ESTIMATED TAXABLE VALUE.
AT THE END OF THAT PROJECT BEING COMPLETED IS THE FORTY FIVE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND. AND THAT LEAVES US WITH AN ESTIMATED PROPERTY VALUE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OF 44 MILLION THREE HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS.
AND NOT TO JUMP AROUND ON TOPICS, BUT JOAN IS LISTENING AND TEXTING ME AND SHE SAYS THAT THE MONEY IS NOT IN AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNTS.
SO SOMETHING WE CAN COME BACK TO AND THINKING.
THANK YOU, JOAN, FOR FOR RESPONDING TO THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD CLARIFICATION AS WELL, THAT THE WHENEVER WHENEVER IT DOES COME BACK WAS IT JUST WAS AN ECONOMIC STUDY PROJECTING WHAT THE VALUE MIGHT BE THAT DOES NOT PREDICT WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS VALUE MIGHT BE.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHENEVER WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS NOW OVER THE LEAD REALLY HAS
[00:10:02]
BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.BUT AS AS I WAS STUDYING THIS AND LOOKING AT THE PHRASE VALUES AND RECENT SALE VALUES OF OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES MEAN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
BUT THEY ARE ALSO MARKET RATE.
SO THEY'RE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, JUST BUILD AT A DIFFERENT TIME.
IT WAS ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT MY FULL EXPECTATION IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN THE FISHKIN STUDY AS FAR AS WHAT WE GET IN TAX VALUE AND THAT AND FURTHERMORE, THAT'S ACTUALLY I MEAN, HOPEFULLY NOT. I'M HOPING IT GETS THIS FULL BECAUSE WE GET A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE ABOVE THAT, BECAUSE I IF THAT REDUCES OUR REVENUE, IF THEIR VALUE REDUCES, YES, OUR PAYMENTS REDUCE. BUT ALSO WHAT WE BRING IN REDUCES.
WHAT WE BRING IN AND REDUCES IS MORE THAN WHAT WE WILL SPEND OUT OVERALL ON THAT EQUATION. SO THE LOWER IT IS, THE MORE IT IMPACTS US NEGLEY FINANCIALLY, NEGATIVELY AND AS FAR AS OUR POSITION AND THAT FUND BALANCE THAT RESERVES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION? ANYTHING ELSE, MADAM CHAIRMAN? NO, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOSTER, BEFORE WE ADJOURN.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NO, NO.
OK, THANK YOU. HEARING NONE, I CALLED THIS MEETING ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.