Report Says Great Park Wouldn’t Raise Taxes

A by-the-numbers look at the so-called Great Park initiative shows that it will not create any new taxes or tax increases, the county auditor said Friday. But maintaining such a park at the closed El Toro Marine base will cost the county $19 million over the next 18 years if it’s approved by voters in March.

The report will be part of the ballot materials for the initiative, which seeks to replace airport zoning at the base with zoning for a large urban park, university, museum complex and sports park.

The report, which for the most part is impartial on the airport issue, was prepared by Public Financial Management, a national consulting firm with an office in Newport Beach. As part of its analysis, the firm also looked at the development of such large parks as New York City’s Central Park and Balboa Park in San Diego.

“We wanted the report to be a fair and objective analysis of the fiscal impacts stemming from the initiative,” said Orange County Auditor-Controller David E. Sundstrom, whose office commissioned the $187,000 report.

The analysis provides fodder for supporters and opponents of the proposed airport.

A park’s biggest blow to county finances, the report said, would be the loss of a commercial airport at the base. An airport would create 84,714 jobs and generate about $6.2 billion in annual economic activityby 2020, the report said.

A park and related development would create 2,955 jobs by 2020 and generate $188 million annually.

The analysis agrees with contentions by initiative supporters that the measure does not involve spending taxpayer funds to build a park; backers say it could be paid for with private money.

But according to the analysis, county spending on a park would be about $19 million greater than outlays for an airport plan, or roughly $1 million a year, and would compete with other priorities. Most of that $19 million would cover maintaining the base, except for development of some sports fields and an amphitheater, Sundstrom said.

“Where is the money going to come from? If it’s the general fund, well, what are we going to cut out? The sheriff’s budget? The health care budget?” asked Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Cynthia P. Coad, who favors an airport at the base.

The analysis also said the initiative does not include the specific projects that Irvine officials have proposed as part of their vision of a Great Park. That means those amenities would not necessarily be built if the initiative passed.

If the land were annexed by Irvine, the report said, “neither the city nor the county would be required to comply with the initiative.” That point was echoed by David Ellis, a pro-airport spokesman: “Irvine is not bound by the initiative and people need to know this.

“What this fiscal analysis says is that if this initiative passes, it would put a padlock on El Toro and cost the county at least $1 million a year to keep the padlock lubricated,” Ellis said.

But El Toro airport opponents like Len Kranser disagreed.

“This report is great news for the initiative because it says no new taxes or increase in taxes is necessary to have a park there,” Kranser said, although he agreed the measure doesn’t specifically provide funding to create the park.

The analysis also contradicted a previous study funded by a pro-airport group that said it would cost the county $418 million to buy the land. The auditor’s report said the land could be conveyed to the county for free because it’s a public benefit.

The report also said it is unlikely the initiative would result in more cleanup costs because the Navy must pay to clear the base of hazardous materials like the solvents used to degrease aircraft engines.

But the park initiative, if passed, would create a new issue for the Navy, since the cleanup required for a park is much greater than that for an airport. And even if the land is turned over free, it could be years before sections of the base were suitable for park use, according to Office of Economic Adjustment officials in San Francisco.

There is no guarantee the Department of Defense would turn the base over for free for a park, knowing that the cleanup costs would skyrocket. For example, the clean-up costs for McClellan Air Force Base in Northern California, also a federal Superfund site, are estimated at $500 million over 34 years. Sacramento County envisions an industrial park with a tenants-only airfield on flat land north of the capital.

Under the report’s scenario, most of the proposed park is expected to remain undeveloped for at least seven years during the planning and design process. The first cultural facilities, including sports fields and an amphitheater on 200 acres, might not be developed for 18 years but are included, along with park maintenance, to add up to the $1 million annual price tag, Sundstrom said.

Kranser argued that if that sum is divided by the county’s 2.8 million residents, “It’s only 30 cents per person” a year to have the park there.

Kranser also took exception to the report’s conservative estimates on revenue generated by the former base. There are 1,187 housing units there, including two- and three-bedroom homes, Kranser said, yet the report’s estimate is based on only 300 homes at a monthly rental fee of $800 each.

But Sundstrom said the consultant surveyed the homes at El Toro and concluded they would not serve as a large revenue-generator.