Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1997-05-27 126 City Council, Special Meeting Redding Convention Center 700 Auditorium Drive, Lobby Area Redding, California May 27, 1997 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Vice Mayor Murray with the following Council Members present: R. Anderson, Kehoe, McGeorge, and Murray. Mayor P. Anderson's absence was excused. Also present were City Manager Warren, Assistant City Manager Perry, City Attorney Wingate, Deputy City Manager Starman, Director of Public Works Galusha, Fire Chief Wagner, Development Services Director Swanson, Electric Group Manager Russell, Assistant City Engineer Russell, Planning Manager Keaney, Community Services Director Gorman, Senior Planner Hanson, Senior Planner DeMallie, City Clerk Strohmayer, and Secretary to the City Council Rudolph. PRIORITIZING CITY PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS (A-050-060) City Manager Warren provided an overview of his memorandum to the City Council dated May 23, 1997, incorporated herein by reference, which contained a list of unfunded projects and programs and possible funding sources. He noted that the list of projects and programs was not meant to be inclusive, but merely a starting point to begin discussions regarding where specific projects should be prioritized. Mr. Warren outlined possible funding sources for unfunded projects and programs as follows: (1) General Fund Reserve - a 2 percent decrease of the General Fund reserve would provide $600,000 in one-time money; (2) Increase fees for park and traffic improvements - if the City Council desired to fund additional traffic improvements or parks, the fees would need to be increased accordingly. A new fee could also be established to fund projects, i.e., a fire station or other general government capital projects; (3)Increase Transient Occupancy Tax - an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax would require approval by the voters. A one percent increase equates to $220,000 annually to the General Fund; (4) Implement a Utility User Tax on City utilities. A a one percent increase would equal $700,000 and would also require voter approval; (5) General Obligation Bonds - general obligation bonds would be used to fund any project and would require a two-thirds vote; (6) Redirect Community Development Block Grant funds; (7) Redevelopment Agency projects - use of Redevelopment Agency money would require some of the current capital improvements to be delayed or paid for by new development. Mr. Warren acknowledged that there were not sufficient funds to complete all of the projects. He stated that the two most obvious sources of funding for projects would be to redirect Community Development Block Grant money and Redding Redevelopment Agency projects. He indicated that the City Council needs to begin this process by: (1) Setting a vision, establishing goals/time frames, develop a work plan to achieve the goals; (2) Develop a list of 10 to 15 projects or programs which would provide the biggest economic return for the dollars spent; (3) Develop another list that would give the existing community the most enjoyment or satisfaction; and (4) Look for similarities between the two lists. Mr. Warren explained that other communities have gone through similar exercises successfully, as evidenced in the video Back from the Brink. He noted the following common factors: emphasis on natural assets, downtown improvements, developing a specific plan, developing three-way partnerships-public, private, and foundations-to leverage available funds, and use of redevelopment and housing money. Mr. Warren recommended that the City Council take the following action: (1) Do not begin any more Redevelopment projects; (2)Consider new opportunities for the use of Redevelopment and Housing funds; (3) Establish a vision and/or goals, either through City Council involvement, community involvement, or development by the City Council; (4)Obtain input from one community that has used redevelopment and housing funds successfully to achieve their goals and change their community and one city that has not been successful. Council Member McGeorge indicated that the improvements under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)were mandated to be completed by a designated time and did not believe they should be on a"wish list." 05/27/97 127 In response to Council Member R. Anderson, Mr. Warren stated that the General Fund's Ten-Year Financial Plan is constantly being updated to reflect expenditures. He indicated that the Ten-Year Financial Plan also provides the City Council with $400,000 of discretionary funding once the City's commitment to fund the museums expires in fiscal year 1999-00. Council Member R. Anderson related that his primary concern was the General Fund and he did not want its reserve to drop below five percent. He believed the General Fund's primary objective was public safety, therefore, he did not see any available money in the General Fund. He expressed a willingness to discuss the possibility of reprioritzing the use of Redevelopment, Housing, and Community Development Block Grant money. Council Member McGeorge concurred that he did not want the General Fund's reserve to drop below five percent. He indicated that as the General Fund's reserves grow, it may be feasible to redirect some of those monies toward projects. He noted that community involvement has been successful, therefore, he suggested establishing a citizens' group to work with a City Council liaison to prioritize these projects. He believed that additional information was necessary in order to clarify costs of projects and current funds committed to projects. Council Member Kehoe stated that the paramount purpose of municipal government is the community's security, i.e., public safety, police, fire, streets, etc. He related that communities which are successful and growing strive to maintain a balance between projects and the community's safety. He believed the City Manager's memorandum represented the initial step in striving to achieve such a balance. He indicated that he was not willing to compromise the City's fiscal integrity on "unrealistic dreams or wishes." He related that he could support reducing the General Fund's reserve if the monies were used to retire the Electric Utility's debt. He opposed the following: increasing fees for park and traffic improvements; increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax; implementing a Utility User Tax on City utilities; and issuing General Obligation Bonds. He was willing to consider redirecting Community Development Block Grant monies and Redevelopment Agency projects. He believed the core ingredient of change within the community was citizen involvement. Council Member R. Anderson related that he was not interested in major revenue enhancements without approval from the voters. Vice Mayor Murray suggested developing a revolving loan fund for projects similar to the drag strip improvements. He noted that the City has resources which are not measured in dollars and he was interested in using these resources to respond to community needs. He cited such projects as Kids Kingdom and the skateboard park. He too opposed the General Fund's reserve dropping below five percent, however, he supported placing a maximum cap on it, whereby excess funds could go toward unfunded projects. He stated that he would support raising development fees, as he did not believe the development community was bearing its share of development costs. He noted that the park development fee per residence had not been increased for 20 years. He opposed the following: increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax; implementing a Utility User Tax on City utilities; and issuing General Obligation Bonds. He supported redirecting Community Development Block Grant monies sought for governmental purposes and Redevelopment Agency projects. He expressed concern over items funded by Community Development Block Grant monies for City departments which have not been discussed prior to appearing on the list for funding. While he did not know if a consultant would be necessary, he asked to see a time line and step-by-step process created in which the community would have input into the process and the City Council could arrive at its own prioritized projects. Vice Mayor Murray questioned whether the Redevelopment Agency could postpone adopting its budget. Assistant City Manager Perry stated that the Redevelopment Agency is required to adopt an annual budget, however, it does not have to authorize the commencement of any projects. Lee Salter, 292 Hemsted Drive, representing The McConnell Foundation, hoped that the City Council would move forward with prioritizing its needs and formulating methods for advancing projects as funding sources become available. He noted that The McConnell Foundation has contributed $75 million to $100 million to the City outside its normal grant program. He stated that The McConnell Foundation desires the City to continue, where possible, to formulate public/private partnerships to better the community. 05/27/97 r- 128 John Fitzpatrick, 822 Northridge Drive, concurred with not drawing down the General Fund's reserves below five percent. With regard to increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax, he stated that Redding has to remain competitive with other communities. He noted that in most instances, travelers do not know whether Redding's Transient Occupancy Tax is lower than another City, therefore, there is no benefit to being low. He further supported developers subsidizing a portion of development. He appreciated the City Council including citizens in this process. He stressed, however, that when developing the priority list, particular attention needs to be given to available subsidies and the return on the investment. He indicated that a consultant could be used to analyze various ways development could occur and what the City could accomplish with available funding, at which time the City Council or citizens could develop a well-balanced priority list. Frank Strazzarino, representing the Greater Redding Chamber of Commerce, related that members of the Chamber of Commerce have spent considerable time viewing Back from the Brink and their reactions went from interest to envying what the cities had done. He stated that many areas of our City and its problems can be seen in the video. He believed there was an opportunity to look at redevelopment funding in a different manner in order to achieve the best return on the investment. He suggested revisiting some of the fees and adjusting where necessary. He applauded the partnership principal and conveyed that the Chamber of Commerce was willing to serve on any committee aimed at the community's betterment. Jeff Swanson, 280 Hemsted Drive, Board Member of Viva Downtown, related that the City needs to focus on items which will provide a real return on investment. He stated there are cities which have found ways to invest limited resources in a manner which has spurred economic development without reducing its General Fund. He opined that these investments would ultimately benefit the General Fund. He believed Redding was moving in a new direction which was reflected by the Turtle Bay Park and Museum, MarketFest, etc., and the greater interest being shown in the City, both economically and socially. In response to Vice Mayor Murray, Mr. Warren related that he has had conversations with the City Manager of Suisun City who is featured on the video. He indicated that he would propose to use him at the onset of the process and discuss what he has seen work and not work in other communities and how redevelopment and housing monies were used to benefit communities. Council Member R. Anderson supported allowing the City Manager to develop a priority list for the City Council's consideration, with the latitude of being able to use a consultant for minor assistance. He also favored maintaining at least a five percent reserve, however, he did not object to any monies over and above that being used for such items as fire stations, police stations, furnishings for the Civic Center, etc. He recommended that the Redevelopment Agency's projects be put on hold, including the Parkview Avenue Bridge. Council Member Kehoe suggested that each City Council Member nominate a member of the community to work with the City Manager in developing a preliminary priority list for the City Council's consideration. He also requested that the City's statutory obligations be identified relative to municipal functions and activities. He was interested in seeing both short- arid long-term partnerships which would result in the advancement of the community. He asked to see projects through which the City's dollars could be leveraged. Council Member McGeorge also believed that the City Manager should perform the initial work in prioritizing City projects and programs. He requested information relative to which projects were mandated, i.e., ADA requirements, where funds were already committed, and which projects were required to be completed. Council Member Murray desired to seek as much community input as possible and suggested holding a public hearing at some point in time. Council Member Kehoe concurred that high citizen involvement was critical to this process. It was the consensus of the City Council that each City Council Member would submit a name of a citizen to work with the City Manager in developing an initial project and program priority listing for the City Council's review and consideration. 05/27/97 129 PUBLIC COMMENT (A-050-060) Frances Jenkins asked that if a consultant was used in the process that it be someone who possesses both practical and theoretical knowledge. She noted that considerable money has previously been spent on studies which were never utilized. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 11:26 a.m., Vice Mayor Murray declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: W� t Vic• Ma •r ATTEST: fiftd-Z City Clerk • 05/27/97 I