Fort Ord Reuse Authority Update and Status Report December 19, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
fort ord reuse authority
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Update and Status Report December 19, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 20, 2023 32 likes •136 views

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Update and Status Report December 19, 2018 https://www.fora.org/ Background 1991 Fort Ord closure announcement Over 30,000 people left the economy = City of Monterey, 9% of MC Repercussions throughout the

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Fort Ord Reuse Authority

Update and Status Report December 19, 2018 https://www.fora.org/

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

  • 1991 Fort Ord closure announcement
  • Over 30,000 people left the economy = City of Monterey, 9% of MC
  • Repercussions throughout the region
  • Seaside and Marina especially hard hit.
  • Over 19,000 jobs lost: military, civilian, private sector, schools
  • Early 90’s regional groups conferred, tried to craft response
  • Task Force created a Strategic Report
  • Chaired by Leon Panetta, over 600 people in subcommittees
  • 720 page report providing direction, focus
  • 1994 Creation of an “authority” to provide regional direction
  • Focus on Education, Economy and Environment
  • Formed an organization, hired staff, Board-determined projects
  • Pacific Grove was part of the creating legislation as a voting member
  • Participate in planning, setting goals, supporting regional recovery
  • One vote, $14,500/year

12/19/2018

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Recent status

  • 2012 Extension of the original Act (80% expectation)
  • Development was hindered: economic slowdown, land “value”,

development assumptions were overly optimistic.

  • Building re-use
  • Demand for open land
  • Cost to take down derelict buildings
  • June 30, 2020 FORA sunsets
  • Now: Transition Plan
  • Assigns on-going responsibilities and obligations
  • Settles liabilities
  • Surfacing gaps, issues, possible ways to go forward
  • Later: May seek a legislative extension or stand-alone “JPA”
  • Senator Monning is actively involved as the legislator most likely to put

forth legislation.

  • Unknown form or structure at this point

12/19/2018

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

What does FORA do?

FORA worked out how to transfer lands from the Army to 5 separate jurisdictions, how to manage habitat protection, remove munitions and hazardous materials, created a Base Reuse Plan and Master Resolution, etc.…….

  • Serves as Funding Conduit for Base-wide projects
  • Community Facilities District Fees (not transferrable to successors)
  • Paid per development permit
  • Pays for Base-wide Projects: Transportation, Water Augmentation, Habitat
  • “Entitled” Development cannot be charged new fees ($72 million)
  • Land Sales/Leases + Property Tax
  • ½ to City/County: General Fund
  • ½ to FORA: Base-wide Building Removal (FORA’s obligations) and CIP (Roads +

Water + HCP)

  • Unencumbered, so can be applied to special projects, pensions
  • Coordinates Army Grants to remove munitions (ESCA)
  • Army’s initial progress for munitions removal was very slow
  • FORA negotiated grants for speedier cleanup (over $100M)
  • Make that land transferable to Land Use Jurisdictions: Marina, Seaside, Del Ray

Oaks, County of Monterey and City of Monterey

  • Army wants single-entity, not multiple contracts

12/19/2018

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • Creating (not done yet) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
  • 69% of 28,000 acres is Open/Recreational Space
  • Fort Ord Dunes State Park
  • National Monument
  • HCP will serve as collective set-aside to balance development and

finance long-term maintenance and operations

  • Waiting for Federal and State agencies to approve (18 months)
  • Endowment “target” has been increased from $9 to $40-60M by

additions of species and required protections

  • Plan
  • Create a JPA to receive funds, oversee management
  • Rely on Land Use Jurisdictions to continue to fund from development

fees

  • Without the HCP, each jurisdiction will have to find an offset

(replacement habitat) within their own lands or per negotiations

  • City of Monterey has 100 acres for “light industrial”
  • Insufficient land within 100 acres to offset impact of development
  • So, no building, therefore no jobs.

12/19/2018

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • Sets Base-wide policies
  • Affordable housing goals set at 20% of development, more than

required by redevelopment standards

  • Prevailing Wage requirements as “Public Works”
  • Disagreement about secondary projects
  • Regional Urban Design Guidelines
  • Sets standards for road design, setbacks, heights, landscaping, etc.
  • Consistency Determination
  • Are all developments, General Plans, consistent with the Base Reuse

Plan? With Base-wide principles?

12/19/2018

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Funds Capital Improvement Projects
  • Cross-jurisdiction road projects are funded from CFD paid by all
  • Ex: Seaside Highlands’ fees paid for roads in Marina
  • How to make that “square”?
  • Ft. Ord infrastructure
  • Far from current safe standards
  • Roads were all inward; fully gated then, now open
  • Water Augmentation uses development fees for water projects to

supply water up to development ceiling

  • Marina Coast Water District is the supplier: annexation/control
  • Early movers get water for “Entitled Projects”, but “Proposed” may

not

  • FORA’s building removal obligations will be met in early 2019
  • Why are derelict buildings still all over the base?
  • Developer obligation

12/19/2018

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Transition Planning

  • Terms of the 2012 Extension – so a legal obligation
  • By December 30, 2018 a Transition Plan shall be submitted to

Local Area Formation Commission which “…shall assign assets and liabilities, designate responsible successor agencies, and provide a schedule of remaining obligations.”

  • Transition Task Force/Committees
  • 2016, 2017 recommended continuing legislation
  • FORA “lite”
  • Keep financial agreements with Entitled Projects’ Fees
  • Keep Agreements with Land Use Jurisdictions
  • Keep property tax extra increment
  • Keep single-point oversight of munitions removal
  • Keep collective oversight, regional approaches
  • Transfer modular responsibilities to relevant entities (ex: TAMC)
  • Obligation is to create a complete Transition Plan

12/19/2018

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Transition Plan (s)

Multiple versions, edits, approaches First vote on 12/14 passed a Transition Plan (11-2) Second vote 12/19 Key outstanding issues:

  • To what extent will current agreements survive FORA? (New agreements

between and among the Land Use Jurisdictions)

  • 145 Contracts – 0 with PG
  • How will collective programs be funded?
  • How will pensions and litigation liabilities be resolved to protect all?
  • What gets left out? (MST bus replacement agreement)
  • How will collective, regional interests be addressed?
  • What is LAFCO’s role in the transition?
  • Does this Plan have a CEQA impact?
  • Programmatic vs. Project EIR

What is Pacific Grove’s interest/concern?

  • Getting 100% funding for CalPERS termination liabilities
  • Habitat funding, supports and adequate management
  • Fair and equitable treatment for all parties

12/19/2018

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Upcoming…..

  • Submit a Transition Plan to LAFCO this month
  • Does not commit anyone to anything
  • Shows what the impact of sunset would/will be
  • Does commit to a PLAN that secures 100% pension funding
  • Land Use Jurisdictions have all the action items
  • Negotiate agreements on funding, sharing revenues, projects
  • Continue work on forming a JPA to receive an HCP (or backup)
  • Continue to work with LAFCO to refine Transition Plan
  • In parallel
  • Evaluate the benefits of some sort of legislation
  • Work with other agencies to assume accountabilities
  • TAMC and MCWD
  • Future date
  • A vote on continuing FORA without Pacific Grove – or not
  • Public outreach, input and Council discussion and direction

12/19/2018

10