Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1997-01-30 18 City Council, Special Meeting Redding Convention Center 700 Auditorium Drive Redding, California January 30, 1997 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the joint meeting of the Redding City Council and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors was to discuss the joint-agency study entitled Striking a Balance: A Comparative Analysis of Services and Costs, Revenues Retained and Taxes Exchanged, Annexation, and Other Alternatives. The meeting was called to order with the following Council Members present: R. Anderson, Kehoe, and McGeorge. Council Members P. Anderson's and Murray's absences were excused. Shasta County Supervisors Clarke, Fust, Hawes, Wilson, and Dickerson were present. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, Deputy City Manager Starman, Finance Officer Strong, Principal Planner Keaney, Associate Planner Morgon, County Administrative Officer Latimer, LAFCo Executive Officer and Principal Administrative Analyst Howard, Deputy County Counsel Underwood, County Property Tax Manager Pickering, and Mike Multari, Consultant, from the firm of Crawford, Multari and Starr. City Manager Warren and County Administrative Officer Latimer presented brief summaries on the reasons the joint-agency study was initiated, the approaches and expectations of the study, and the goals that were established for this joint-agency study. It was explained that the study was conducted to help clarify the problems experienced by cities, counties, and LAFCo's when dealing with annexations and to develop possible recommendations for improving the process. Associate Planner Morgon introduced Element No. 1 of the joint study which dealt with fiscal impacts. ' Consultant Mike Multari presented an analysis of the information and the methodology which was used. LAFCo Executive Officer and Principal Administrative Analyst Howard and Assistant City Manager Perry presented overviews of the four elements of the study. Element No. 1 compares service to revenues; Element No. 2 deals with tax exchange agreement procedures and perspectives; Element No. 3 compares annexation issues; and Element No. 4 presents services options and alternatives. Following each element overview, Ms. Howard and Mr. Perry presented the County and the City perspectives on each element. The findings, conclusions, and proposed actions were also reviewed. Public input was received from Dave Scott, Chairman of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC). Mr. Scott commended the staff on the work done on this study and expressed support for the potential benefits of this joint effort to industrial development and encouraged continuation of this joint process. Frank Straz7arino, President and CEO of the Redding Chamber of Commerce, also commended all parties involved in the study and pointed out that it provides quality background information they can use in performing their work. Mr. Strazzarino expressed his belief that the two entities must come up with their own solutions to their problems and indicated that the business community is ready to do their part to assist. He urged both entities to take steps to act on the report. Vi Klaseen, a member of the City's General Plan Task Force and the advisory group of the Shasta County Transportation Commission, questioned some of the assumptions made in the report relative to the distribution from the Local Transportation Fund. Ms. Klaseen indicated that in their discussions,the advisory group discussed making public transportation self supporting. She said that it was important to maintain a balance and not just look at the fiscal impacts when dealing with annexations, but that housing, population, and transportation must also be considered. John Dunlap, CEO of Sharrah, Dunlap, and Sawyer, stated there must be housing, commercial, and industrial development, not just what is profitable. He indicated that if only commercial development is encouraged in each jurisdiction, it would negatively affect the other types of development, sales tax 01/30/97 19 would decrease, and housing and industrial development would suffer. He expressed his support for what is being done through this joint effort, and encouraged continued dialogue. Supervisors and City Council Members expressed their appreciation for the work done on the joint study. There was a consensus that both entities must work together as a community to solve their common problems, particularly in light of the fact that they cannot rely on the State for assistance. They believed the report provided a basis and opportunity to change how land development is handled and how both entities can cooperatively work together in other areas, i.e., air quality, water, crime, etc. MOTION: Made by Council Member Kehoe, seconded by Council Member R. Anderson, to accept the following recommendations: (1) seek legislation from the State with respect to a"return shift" of property taxes; (2) develop proposals for tax exchange agreements, including a proposal to change the current procedure to reduce delay;and(3)sending copies of the study to the League of California Cities, the County Supervisors Association, and State legislators. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by County Supervisor Clarke, seconded by County Supervisor Wilson, to accept the following recommendations: (1) seek legislation from the State with respect to a"return shift" of property taxes; (2)develop proposals for tax exchange agreements, including a proposal to change the current procedure to reduce delay;and(3) sending copies of the study to the League of California Cities, the County Supervisors Association, and State legislators. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 5:35 p.m., the joint meeting was adjourned. APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • 01/30/97