HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - unsigned - 1991-02-25 - Adjourned Regular Meeting1
02/25/91
City Council, Adjourned Regular
Meeting
Redding Convention Center, Room 125
Redding, California
February 25, 1991 6:35 p.m.
Mayor Buffum called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Redding City
Council and Joint Meeting with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and
Anderson City Council to order with the following Council Members present:
Dahl, Fulton, Moss and Buffum. Council Member Arness was absent.
Also present were City Manager Christofferson, Assistant City Manager
McMurry, City Attorney Hays, Director of Planning and Community
Development Perry, Senior Planner King, City Clerk Nichols and
Secretary/Stenographer Rudolph.
Shasta County Board of Supervisors present were: Bosworth, Clarke,
Johannessen, Sullivan and Wilson. Also present were Chief Executive
Officer Johnson, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Albright, Acting County
Counsel Jahr, Director of Community Services Preston, and Clerk of the
Board Taylor.
Anderson City Council present were: Cannan, Mower, Walsh and Smolenski.
Council Member Lewis was absent. Also present were City Manager Murphy
and City Clerk Hensley.
Mayor Buffum announced that the purpose of the meeting is for a study
session between the City of Redding, the City of Anderson, and the Shasta
County Board of Supervisors regarding the annexation property tax
apportionment policies and the firing range.
ANNEXATION - PROPERTY TAX APPORTIONMENT POLICIES
(T-010-650 & A-150)
Supervisor Wilson stated there is a common misconception that Shasta
County services are provided only to people living outside the city limits
of Redding and Anderson. While it is true that each entity has
departments that provide specific services to the residents within their
boundaries, such as law enforcement, planning, and public works, Shasta
County provides numerous services to all of the people who live in the
County. She indicated a few examples listed on the report entitled "The
Cost of Providing County Wide Services", incorporated herein by reference.
Supervisor Wilson also reviewed the "Percentage of Property Tax Shares"
for the fiscal years 1980-1981 and 1990-1991, incorporated herein by
reference.
Council Member Dahl indicated that the majority of the property tax
percentage increase from fiscal years 1980-1981 to 1990-1991 took place in
the incorporated areas.
Supervisor Clarke commented that projects which start in the County
ultimately end up in the incorporated areas through annexation, therefore,
contributing to the percentage difference.
Mayor Buffum communicated that the City of Redding presently has 14
annexations awaiting Shasta County approval of property tax exchange
before being forwarded to LAFCO for processing. In order to expedite
these pending annexations, she stated it was the City of Redding's desire
to reach a consensus regarding annexations and the property tax percentage
division.
Shasta County Chief Executive Officer Johnson expounded on the reports
which Supervisor Wilson previously referenced and stated the County's
studies indicate the County only receives $.77 in revenue for every $1.00
spent providing services to an annexed area. The Board told County staff
that this could not continue to happen. With the current property tax
split of 54% to County and 46% to City, the Board would be taking County
reserves to offset the added cost of services in incorporated areas. With
the Board needing to retain 100% of the property tax base, it was
suggested that the City implement an annexation buy-in fee. This fee
2
02/25/91
would be based on the investment the City has already paid for in the form
of City Halls, Fire
3
02/25/91
Department, Police Station and fixed assets in the subject area, and based
on this investment, one would buy corporate stock based on documented
fees. Another reason for the property tax retention is once an area is
annexed, the County gives up its portion of the remaining tax sources,
i.e., sales tax, motor vehicle in lieu taxes, transient occupancy,
franchise, etc.
Mr. Johnson further stated that the County currently receives 28.04% of
the property tax share on a County wide level and 30.3% within the
unincorporated areas. Even at 28%, the County is still losing $.23 on
every $1.00 spent for County wide services, i.e. criminal justice related,
court related, welfare related, health related, etc.
Council Member Moss opined undeveloped acreage worth $4,000 in the County,
once developed and annexed, could be worth $400,000 per acre in the City.
The property tax jump from $40 per acre can increase the County's income
due to the annexation, whereas, otherwise it will remain undeveloped and
the property tax income will remain minimal. He said the pie charts are
without relevance and they obfuscate the issues.
Supervisor Johannessen commented that with each annexation the cities
receive greater benefits than the County. The County is still mandated to
provide various services to these annexed areas. As previously indicated,
once an annexation occurs, the County loses $.23 for each $1.00 spent on
mandated services. He said it is a matter of equity.
Supervisor Clarke reiterated that the County also loses the benefit of
sales tax income, franchise tax, transient occupancy tax, etc. She opined
that in order for the County to survive, it is going to have to maintain
some of this income generating property within the County.
Supervisor Johannessen quoted the following figures concerning the
agencies receipt of sales tax revenue: State-wide Average - $93.19; City
of Anderson Average - $83.95; City of Redding Average - $154.07; and
Shasta County Average $27.54. The County needs to maintain the property
tax base in order to remain whole.
Council Member Dahl opined that unfunded State mandates are causing the
County's financial problem, thus causing the manipulation of city coffers
to enable the County to survive. He stated that the City's revenues are
also being depleted with the newly initiated booking fee and tax
collecting charges being imposed on the cities by the County, as well as
the City being called upon to assist in the funding of the library system,
all coming from the City General Fund. He indicated that if the County
maintains 100% of the property tax base, next, the County will be asking
for a portion of the sales tax revenue. As to Mr. Johnson's suggestion of
an annexation buy-in fee, this just adds an additional fee burden to the
homeowner. In addition to the County wide services provided daily, City
services are impacted as well; County residents who work within the City
limits use City roads and rely upon City Police and Fire Departments. He
said the process of making one entity poorer to support the other is only
a short term solution. He said the problem must be solved at the State
level.
Mayor Buffum expressed concern over why the County did not implement
development fees, i.e. traffic impact fees, etc. She indicated that the
City has increased by some 25,000 people, but it is in a pay-as-you-go
mode.
Supervisor Johannessen recognized that the State is the culprit of the
County's financial situation and he recently appeared before a Senate
Committee concerning SB 2557 and SB 169. He also indicated that the fees
being generated are not near enough to fill the gap in the County budget.
Supervisor Clarke explained the County does have a traffic impact fee
program, however, before a project reaches that development stage, it is
annexed into a city. She said it seems to be assumed that if it is going
to be developed, it has to be annexed to a city. She said she does not
believe that is true; the County must develop within its own boundaries
and maintain that tax base within the County.
4
02/25/91
In response to Council Member Dahl, Supervisor Sullivan remarked that the
sales tax redistribution is being looked at on a State wide basis and one
of the primary issues is land use development. She stated that citizens
in unincorporated areas subsidize incorporated areas; that the issue is
equity.
Council Member Dahl opined the State is not looking at sales tax
redistribution because of land use development, but redistribution at the
local level because the State does not want to deal with the problem.
With the redistribution of sales tax, you deplete the City's resources,
thus diminishing the quality of life standards and the public safety
presently provided. He said sales tax revenues are not sufficient to pay
for the Police Department and Fire Department and noted that the City's
daytime population is greater than its nighttime population.
Supervisor Sullivan indicated, that out of economic necessity, shopping
centers may have to be developed in the unincorporated areas, thus
providing the County with sales tax revenue. She referenced all the
services provided by the County.
Supervisor Johannessen stated he has no argument that the financial
problem rests with the State, but there are services that the County is
mandated to provide in both unincorporated and incorporated areas, and all
the County is trying to do is distribute the funds more equitably so the
County can remain whole when an annexation occurs. For this to be
accomplished, the County must retain 100% of the current property tax
base, and that 77% be given to the County and 23% to the City on future
increments.
Supervisor Bosworth commented that in order for all parties concerned to
survive, it is the responsibility of the governmental officials present to
determine an equitable method of dividing the benefits when an annexation
occurs.
Mayor Buffum opined that possibly annexations are not the real issue, and
talk should be along the lines of developing a sales tax agreement; and
thereby would not be building competing corridors of urbanization, which
is not good planning. Some of the mandated programs should be done on a
fair share basis.
Council Member Dahl stated Council is in no position to endorse the sales
tax issue.
Council Member Smolenski said that the City of Anderson does not have any
excess sales tax to be negotiated with. He also stated the annexation
issue does not have a direct affect on Anderson at this time, however, he
does not want to get into a position of competing with one another in
urban development. Presently, Interstate 5 is an urban corridor and is
being annexed to cities because of the services which can be provided. He
addressed the issue of the possibility of Central Valley being
incorporated and opined that the County would lose more property tax
through this occurring than through annexations.
Mr. Johnson responded that in the incorporation of a city, the property
tax is determined by a formula set forth in the State Government Code and
depends on what taxes are currently being collected in the area, what
services the County would be giving up, and what percent of those services
are funded by the property tax, and at best, the city would get 23%. It
would not be negotiated by the County or city, but determined by LAFCO.
Council Member Dahl inquired as to the City's cost of annexing a
residential area, as such things as the cost of electrical services
increases, as well as the cost of providing public safety. With each
annexation the possibility of needing an additional fire hall and police
substation increases. These funds will come out of the City's general
fund, therefore, in addition to the County's costs increasing, the City's
costs also increase.
Supervisor Johannessen explained that the sales tax agreement which Mayor
Buffum is proposing will come one day whether the County or cities like it
or not. There is presently seven square miles of property proposed for
annexation into the City of Redding. The main issue now is what can be
done to ensure that the County stays out of bankruptcy and the County is
5
02/25/91
not taken over by the State. He said an unhealthy County will not serve
the city well, and an unhealthy city will not serve the County well. A
common ground needs to be found.
6
02/25/91
It was noted that the Cities of Anderson and Redding and the County cannot
afford to give up the base they have. An agreement needs to be reached on
future taxes. Council Member Walsh indicated the Factory Outlet infra
structure had used up the City of Anderson's sales tax revenue for years
to come. In addition, the City's general fund is being depleted by such
things as booking fees, thus the City is running on almost no income and
he opposes the City giving up any sales tax revenue.
Supervisor Bosworth indicated that another meeting date should be set so
additional recommendations can be presented.
Council Member Dahl asked if the County intends to remain status quo or
change the existing Property Tax Agreement.
Supervisor Clarke responded that the County would now retain 100% of the
property tax base, with the County receiving 77% and the City 23% of
future increments.
In response to Mayor Buffum, City Manager Christofferson indicated that
the City is in the process of borrowing some software in order to compute
the City's costs for annexation.
Supervisor Clarke inquired if an agreement would have to be reached that
would hold true for every annexation or if they could be taken one at a
time and move the projects forward.
Mr. Christofferson responded that there is already a long standing Master
Agreement in place.
Council Member Moss stated there is still property available in the City
for development if annexation is no longer an option. However, he opined
that the County's problem is revenue and the County would receive more
benefit by allowing annexations. A $5,000 piece of property in the County
presently only generates $15 worth of property tax, once annexed to the
City and developed residential with three homes would now provide $900 per
acre and enable the County to discontinue police, fire, and public works
services to this area. Confusing sales tax with residential makes the
issue more complicated than it really is.
Supervisor Sullivan responded that just because the property has been
developed and annexed, the County's cost of business does not decrease.
The County does not lay off a Deputy Sheriff or a member of Planning staff
because the County no longer serves this area. The County needs to find a
revenue source to continue providing mandated services to these annexed
areas.
Council Member Moss opined the County is better off letting this land be
annexed to the City than just letting it remain undeveloped. It is not
fair to hold developers hostage while the County looks for a source of
revenue.
Supervisor Sullivan stated that the County does not lose its
responsibility for providing such things as environmental health, a jail,
the court system, justice system, etc. When people move into these areas,
the County's cost of doing business increases and the County needs to find
a way to continue paying for these services.
Council Member Fulton noted that developers of shopping centers seek out
City services.
Council Member Dahl observed that the type of buyers in new subdivisions
are not heavy users of the jail and on welfare. He acknowledged that some
agreement needs to be reached in dealing with annexations and proposed the
formation of a committee comprised of two representatives from each
governmental body.
City of Redding Planning Director Perry indicated that most of the pending
annexations are residential in nature.
Council Member Smolenski commented that even though the annexation issue
does not affect the City of Anderson at the present time, they would like
7
02/25/91
to be included in any discussions, so as to develop a joint agreement
between the three parties.
Mayor Buffum commented that the Redding City Council would like to talk
about piece meal annexations and look at offer/counter offer and arrange
for another meeting between the three entities within 30 days to discuss
this issue. All parties were in agreement.
RECESS
At the hour of 8:00 p.m., Mayor Buffum declared the meeting recessed.
At the hour of 8:18 p.m., Mayor Buffum reconvened the meeting to regular
session.
FIRING RANGE
(C-070-010-050)
City of Redding Senior Planner King presented a brief overview of the
firing range issue. The current site (owned by Mr. Finazzo) being
considered is 14 minutes from Redding off of Iron Mountain Road, two miles
north of Keswick, and comprised of 123 acres surrounded by thousands of
acres of Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management property.
The primary purpose for this firing range is to accommodate the training
needs of law enforcement personnel from various governmental entities and
for Hunter Safety programs. Due to the proximity of residences in the
Mary Lake area, it is anticipated that the Record Range will not be able
to continue operations much longer. He also indicated that there are
currently 47 known illegal ranges located within the County. By providing
a safe, regulated place for the public to shoot, indiscriminate shooting
can be eliminated. The same safety measures that would have applied to
the Hunt Ranch are being proposed for this location. There is an adequate
6,000 acre buffer and also parking area.
Supervisor Bosworth commented that an added feature of this site is the
proximity of the designated off road vehicle area.
Mr. King stated that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has indicated the
area could accommodate the range, however, in order for them to officially
respond, the site will need to be officially submitted to the BLM for
review. Mr. King said he has walked the site with Bureau of Reclamation
officials and the only concerns are in regards to noise impact on the
recreational trail system, and these items will need to be addressed if
the project goes forward.
In order to proceed with an unified approach, Mayor Buffum stated the
Redding City Council is trying to find a solution to this need and would
like to know if it is the intention of both Shasta County and the City of
Anderson to support this effort.
Council Member Smolenski responded that the Anderson City Council had
adopted a resolution at its last meeting giving conceptual support to the
firing range.
Council Member Walsh stated that although not directly stated in the
resolution, the Anderson City Council backs the use of condemnation if
necessary.
Supervisor Bosworth indicated he is in strong support of the firing range,
and, in addition, the proposed location could lend itself to other
beneficial uses, i.e. educational and fishing. He specified that he had
not had any contact with the land owner and does not want to use
condemnation unless absolutely necessary.
In response to Mayor Buffum's question, Mr. Christofferson stated an
agreement has not been reached on price, as the property owner is
expecting more than the appraised value.
The property owner, Mr. Finazzo explained that the property was purchased
with the intention of retaining it for 20 to 30 years. His first contact
with the City was when he found Mr. King on the property without
permission. He stated he told Mr. King he will not sell the property for
less than $10,000 an acre.
8
02/25/91
Mr. King commented that the City received a letter from Mr. Finazzo
indicating he would be willing to discuss the sale of the property. In
response to Mr. Finazzo's trespassing allegation, Mr. King stated that the
property owner according to Assessor records, Santa Fe Real Estate, was
contacted and authorized the City to look at the subject land. After Mr.
Finazzo indicated he owned the property, Santa Fe Real Estate was again
contacted and admitted that the property had sold and apologized for the
error.
Council Member Walsh noted that Mr. Finazzo has a right to secure his own
appraisal to formulate a fair price in today's market, but he is talking
about tomorrow's market.
Supervisor Wilson indicated her support for the firing range site and that
it is a logical use for that property and will well serve the people of
the County.
Supervisor Bosworth stated he has received a lot of favorable input and he
has no problem endorsing the location and felt it was capable of
accommodating additional uses. His only regret is that it cannot be
acquired without using eminent domain proceedings.
Council Member Fulton commented that the property owner has a fixed amount
in mind, and he does not support condemnation proceedings and another
location should be sought.
Council Member Walsh stated that he has walked the property, along with
Council Member Smolenski and City of Anderson Chief of Police, and is very
supportive of the location.
Council Member Smolenski noted that the site can be accessed by a paved
road and that power and water are there, and believes it will be a good
regional recreational site.
Council Member Moss voiced his strong support for a regional firing range
and opined this site will accommodate a very nice facility. He also
commented that there are Federal and State monies available on an on-going
basis, and at present, no other facility in Northern California is
eligible to use these funds. As the courts will ensure Mr. Finazzo
receives a fair market value for the property, he stated he also favors
the use of eminent domain proceedings.
Council Member Dahl concurred with Council Member Moss and opined that if
this site is not chosen, it would be difficult to locate another site to
accommodate a firing facility in Shasta County. He also commented that it
is one of the best sites that has been looked at. If an agreement cannot
be reached with Mr. Finazzo, he also favors the use of eminent domain
proceedings. As tax payers dollars are being dealt with, a fair market
value must be paid without being gouged.
Supervisor Clarke indicated her family is involved in shooting and
presently there is not a location available to accommodate such things as
rifle siting, etc. A place for safe shooting needs to be provided. In
addition, law enforcement personnel need a facility that meets all the
necessary requirements to ensure proper training. She can support eminent
domain proceedings if an agreement cannot be reached with the property
owner.
Supervisor Sullivan voiced her support, with her only concern being the
use of condemnation which should be a last resort.
Supervisor Johannessen commented that he agreed with all the reasons
previously stated, and there is a clear need for the firing range. He
indicated that if necessary eminent domain proceedings should be used,
thus ensuring Mr. Finazzo a fair market value for the property.
MOTION: Made by Council Member Dahl, seconded by Council Member Moss,
that the City of Redding endorse moving ahead with the firing range
project on the Finazzo property, using eminent domain as a last resort,
and directing the Mayor to put together a sub-committee with the County
and the City of Anderson to determine the lead agency on the project,
joint powers status, and funding.
9
02/25/91
The vote was as follows:
Ayes: Council Members: Dahl, Moss & Buffum
Noes: Council Members: Fulton
Absent: Council Members: Arness
MOTION: Made by Supervisor Bosworth, seconded by Supervisor Clarke, to
move forward with the firing range project on the proposed property, using
eminent domain as a last resort, and directing the Chairman of the Board
to work with the Mayor of Redding to put together a sub-committee with the
cities to determine joint power status and funding, but designated the
City of Redding as the lead agency on the project.
The vote was as follows:
Ayes: Supervisors: Bosworth, Clarke, Johannessen, Sullivan & Wilson
Noes: Supervisors: None
Absent: Supervisors: None
As the City of Anderson had already adopted a resolution, no action was
necessary on their part.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, at the hour of 8:57 p.m., Mayor Buffum
declared the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk