Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1978-06-26179 City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting Police Dept. & Council Chambers Redding, California June 26, 1978 The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by City Attorney Murphy. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Demsher with the following Councilmen present: Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Also present were City Manager Brickwood, Assistant City Manager Courtney, City Attorney Murphy, Public Works Director Arness, Planning and Community Development Director Harris, Chief of Police Whitmer, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations Reynolds, Electric Superintendent Mix, Public Works Superintendent Galusha, Assistant City Engineer Lang, Associate Civil Engineer Hastings, Senior Associate Planner Perry, Assistant Finance Director Tenneson, Airports Manager McCall, City Clerk Brayton, and Deputy City Clerk Richter. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS APPEAL - Planning Commission Negative Declaration re Electric Rate Increase In a communication to Council dated June 20, 1978, Marshall S. Mayer, Attorney, appealed the Planning Commission negative declaration dated June 13, 1978 that electric rate increase by the City of Redding increasing rates by approximately 28% will create no substantial adverse impact upon the environment. APPEAL - Planning Commission Negative Declaration re Ordinance Nos. 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, and 1394 In a communication to Council dated June 21, 1978, Marshall S. Mayer, Attorney, appealed the Planning Commission negative declaration dated June 20, 1978 of City Code Ordinance Nos. 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, and 1394, and considered by the Board of Administrative Review and determined (� to have no substantial adverse impact upon the environment. City Attorney Murphy said, in reviewing this matter, that on June 22, 1978, Temporary Restraining Order No. 60733 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta, by Marshall S. Mayer, Attorney for Wendell T. Martin, James T. Ramsay, and Kurt Reichel, et al, against the City of Redding. The exparte Temporary Restraining Order was delivered to the City on June 23, 1978. The City has 30 days in which to file a response to the complaint and has so complied with that require- ment. City Attorney Murphy said that today, Monday, June 26, 1978, Judge Phelps dissolved the restraining order on all items and set the hearing on the Order to Show Cause for July 14, 1978. Mr. Murphy said he has requested an executive session prior to the scheduled public hear- ing to discuss the pending litigation, and an executive session prior to consideration of the personnel items on the agenda to discuss labor relations matters. EXECUTIVE SESSION At the hour of 7:10 P.M., Mayor Demsher declared an Executive Session re pending litigation and personnel matters. At the hour of 7:28 P.M., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - Sylvia Woods Associate split into One of the Civil Engineer Hastings reported that in 1976, subject lot was three lots. The area on Calexico Drive was shown on the Vu Graph. conditions of that lot split was that the sanitary sewer would be xi "M extended to serve all of those lots at the time of development and the City would reimburse the developer for his actual costs of construction for said sewer line. About two months ago, Jerry Woods, the only one residing on this property, had a 6" sewer line constructed in Calexico Drive to serve this property. The construction of this sewer line will provide service to several other properties where service is not available. It is recommended that Council approve the reimbursement agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick approving the aforestated recommendation. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - Statewide Developers Associate Civil Engineer Hastings reviewed the recommendation re the request \ for a reimbursement agreement by Statewide Developers including the letter 'ry ,submitted by said developers. It is the recommendation of the Department of Public Works that Council approve said agreement. V MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Fulton approving the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Redding and Statewide Developers, Inc. and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes. LAKEWOOD MANOR SUBDIVISION Associate Civil Engineer Hastings reviewed the memo from the Department of Public Works to Council dated June 21, 1978. Mr. Hastings said that at its meeting of June 19, 1978, Council was advised that the subdivider was install- ing a sanitary sewer at the line and grade required by the Public Works Department. The sewer will be 12 to 15 feet deep and will serve those areas logically tributary to the trunk sanitary sewer. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that Council participate with the developer of the Lakewood Manor Subdivision in an amount of $5,600 to place the line of this size and at the grade required. The $5,600 is a paper transfer because the subdivision will be credited for acreage fees normally collected. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard approving the aforestated recommendation. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes RESOLUTION - Contract with P.G. & E. re Easement for Ellis Street Extension MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that Resolution No. 78-95 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding approving right of way contract covering an easement over P.G. & E. property for the Ellis Street Extension and authorizing its execu- tion by the City Manager. n� Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Resolution No. 78-95 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 1 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING - Re following proposed Ordinances: 3yc_�_Ti �i`, Ordinance No. 1390 pertaining to Construction Taxes �.3G;c1 �'I I Ordinance No. 1392 pertaining to Utilities (-11 2LI(,, 0\' Ordinance No. 1394 pertaining to Park and Recreational Land Dedications � and In Lieu Fees 10� C Ordinance No. 1393 pertaining to Park Funds Ordinance No. 1391 pertaining to Sewer and Water Connection Charges in Subsequently Annexed Areas I'll 31(„ The hour of 7:30 P.M. having arrived, Mayor Demsher opened the Public Hearing on the afore -listed ordinances. 1 1 1 181 The following documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk: Affidavit of Publication - Notice of Public Hearing Planning and Community Development Initial Study re New Development Fees dated June 19, 1978 Planning and Community Development Negative Declarations dated June 23, 1978 Planning and Community Development Memo dated June 26, 1978 City Clerk Brayton advised Council that a communication had been received from Ernest and Faith Ostling, 2626 Russell Street, protest- ing the proposed growth fees. In addition, an Appeal of the Planning Commission Negative Declarations regarding the aforestated ordinances was filed by Marshall Mayer (see Page 179 of these Minutes for additional detail) . Planning and Community Development Director Harris reviewed the five proposed ordinances. Negative Declarations adopted by the Board of Administrative Review, at its meeting on June 20, 1978, were submitted to Council members: Staff recommends that Council ratify the action of the Board of Administrative Review and adopt the Negative Decla- rations. A copy of the Planning and Community Development Department's Initial Study re New Development Fees, dated June 19, 1978, was submitted to Council. Mr. Harris said that at the Council meeting of June 19, 1978, Messrs. Ken Murray and Marshall Mayer, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth, raised several questions and concerns in regard to the proposed development fees. In a memo to Council dated June 26, 1978, Mr. Harris responded to the pertinent issues raised. Councilwoman Gard favored reading the memo in its entirety aloud for the benefit of those in the audience who may not be familiar with the issues. Mr. Harris read his memo to Council as follows: To: All Members of the City Council From: Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Development Fees At the Council meeting of June 19, 1978, several questions and concerns were raised in regard to the proposed development fees. The communi- cations of Messrs. Ken Murray and Marshall Mayer are attached. Responses to the pertinent issues are as follows: 1. Relationship of Fees to Size of Unit The ordinances have been structured to place the lowest fees on the smallest units and the highest fees on the largest units. Park fees are based on both number of bedrooms and type of unit. All other fees are less on a per-unit basis for multiple family than for single family. Storm -drain fees are based on square footage of the unit. 2. Delayed Payment Program This was requested several months ago, and the time of payment for all but the park dedication fees has been moved from final - map stage to building -permit stage. The Council has further modified the proposal to provide for a deferment of the fees until final inspection. It is the opinion of the staff and the economic consultant that the average home purchaser is more concerned with the monthly cost of the unit than the total over- all cost and would prefer to have these costs included in the mortgage. A delayed -payment system would increase the monthly cost to the home buyer. No workable mechanism has been found to implement such a program. 3. Use of Collected Revenue Each of the proposed ordinances provides that revenue collected shall be used for the specific purpose for which it is collected. 4. The Legality of the Fees The proposed fees are legal and are being enacted pursuant to enabling provisions of State law and have been enacted in many other California cities, including Davis, Woodland, Roseville, Fairfield, Pleasanton, and Livermore, to name a few. 5. Requirement that all Water Customers Pay for Increased Plant Capacity The proposed fees incorporate existing acreage charges. All water customers will continue to pay a monthly service charge. The City has proposed that new customers shall pay for increased plant capacities beyond the needs of existing customers. 6. Reduce Sewer Charqes to Cost of Plant Level At the present time, the local share of the Regional Sewage Treat- ment Plant, not yet in operation, is being paid for by user fees and bond funds. Some of the present customers are paying for their third treatment plant. In anticipation of the next plant expansion, which will likely be necessary in less than ten years, the position of the City is that new development should pay for the next plant expansion by a fund created at this time and that existing customers should not have to subsidize the new construction. 7. Streets The purpose of the capital -improvement fee is to generate revenue to mitigate the off-site impacts of a development, particularly traffic. For example, traffic from a development is added to exist- ing street volumes away from the project site. Eventually, con- tinued increases in traffic volumes necessitate street widenings, traffic signals, and turn lanes. Without new construction, these improvements would not be necessary. The comments on the capital -improvement fee fail to note the purpose of the capital -improvement fee, and, in addition, fail to quote the consultant's remarks in toto. The consultant states elsewhere in the report that, "The street system capital fee is probably too low vis-a-vis costs." 8. Electrical Charges The City is proposing a $100.00 connection charge to new single- family homes, not $300.000 as stated by Mr. Mayer. This partially offsets the City's cost for each new residential unit. 9. Moral Issues The argument that the fees will cause a greater burden for the retired or the poor is not germane. The fees are equitable and apply equally to all new construction. By charging new development 183 for the increased costs to the community, the City will be better able to hold the line on service charges and utility rates. The fees will permit enlarged plant capacities, improved streets, and more parks, without additional costs to existing residents. 10. Propriety of Fees The proposed fees were first presented to the public in Novem- ber of 1977. It is now June, 1978. The City Council, at the request of a small group of citizens, agreed to and paid for an independent economic evaluation of the proposed fees. It can hardly be said the fees are being railroaded through. 11. Avoidance of the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act The proposal, as presented, meets the requirements of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act. A negative declaration has been proposed, based upon the initial study and the consultant's report; and there is no substantial adverse environmental impact. It is important to bear in mind that the key issue is the impact of new development upon the City and its citizens. New development does affect the City; it increases traffic on streets that were originally designed as local streets; increased traffic creates the need for traffic signals at congested intersections. Growth means that sewer and water systems need to be enlarged to meet the increased demand, and residential areas need usable park facilities for children to play. If the demands of growth are to be met, the City must be in a financial posi- tion to accommodate such growth, or new development will necessarily have to be restricted. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Benjamin A. Harris Benjamin A. Harris, Director Planning and Community Development City Attorney Murphy referenced a half -page Public Notice published in the Record Searchlight on Monday, June 26, 1978, re Council consideration of the electrical rate increase, and other matters. Mr. Murphy advised persons present that the resolution regarding electrical rates had been adopted previously and was not on the agenda tonight. Mr. Murphy enumerated the ordinances which would be considered. Relative to the appeal filed (see Page 179 of these Minutes), Mr. Murphy said that State Law provides that any persons feeling aggrieved re passage of ordinances may submit a written plea within 30 days; however, that Negative Declarations on the proposed ordinances had not been certified by Council and that Council must take action before there can be an appeal. Mayor Demsher asked that opponents of the proposed ordinances speak first. Marshall Mayer, Attorney, appeared before Council representing a number of residents including Wendell Martin and Jim Ramsay. Mr. Mayer stated that the City is well run and he appreciates the independent leadership of the City Council members. However, he is concerned with the substance and method of passing these ordinances and believes it is a radical departure from the traditional way. He said the City has not complied with the rules by not completing an E.I.R. According to California Administrative Code Section 15083, Sections B, D, and E, the City is required to give notice to hear 184 and allow public input before completing a Negative Declaration. He said the Notice of Public Hearing was published on June 19 in the Record Searchlight, which comes out at noon, for a meeting on June 20, and felt this was not adequate or reasonable notice. The requirements for notice per California Administrative Code Sections 15066, 15085, Section B, 15164, and 15165 were referenced. Pursuant to the instructions of the City Clerk, he filed an appeal re the Negative Declaration within the 10 -day limit. He said that anyone filing an appeal is entitled to a hearing and he has not had a hearing. Mr. Mayer said the City cannot correct the technical improprieties, and he questioned whether the fees proposed are reasonable. With reference to the electric rate increase, he felt the fees would affect power usage and raise the electrical rates of 270 of the population and he feels such rate changes require an E.I.R. Re development fees, he stated that the cost of homes will increase by $2500 and rents will go up $27 per unit. Mr. Mayer said, in reviewing the Initial Study Checklist for the Negative Declarations re development fees, prepared by the Planning Department, he challenged No. 8, Land Use, and No. 11, Population. He said the fees will unquestionably increase the cost of homes and there will be a shift in population to the County if such fees are enacted. He said that already people are leaving the Redding School District and are moving into the Enterprise area and into the County and that this is a massive shift of the population. He suggested that the entire matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for an E.I.R. Mayor Demsher said that if the development fees had been in effect during the last electric -rate increase, the proposal for the present increase might have been 4-50 less than it is. City Attorney Murphy reminded those at the hearing that the electrical rate increase is not the issue at this meeting. In response to a request for clarification of the in -lieu revenue to the City General Fund from the electric system, Mr. Murphy explained that every municipality in the State that gets its power from the Central Valley Project makes a profit from the utility. The City's rates are substantially lower than P.G. & E.'s rates although P.G. & E. receives a portion of power from the Central Valley Project. P.G. & E. complained to the State Legislature that one of the reasons for the differential was that the municipalities paid no taxes on their utility operations while they had to. A 14% tax rate was proposed for the cities with electric facilities, which was vigorously opposed by such municipalities. The cities were successful, but determined it advisable to institute a procedure where an in -lieu charge or fee would be contributed to the General Fund of the City equal to the taxes which a privately -owned company would have had to pay. Mr. Murphy said that for the past few years, that figure in Redding has amounted to $330,000. He said that from the surplus, the City was able to pay for the Cascade area electric facilities when it was annexed. If the in -lieu tax had not been paid into the General Fund, the City would have had to obtain funds elsewhere for expenses of general Government. He said expenditures such as $1,470,000 to P.G. & E., $750,000 for the Canby Substation, $4,800,000 in bond money for the Keswick Transmission line, are examples of expenses the City was able to meet because of the revenue derived from the electric utility. Mr. Murphy said that, because the City does not know what annexations are ahead where major electric facilities will have to be acquired for electrical services, the City maintains this surplus fund derived from operating the electrical utilities profitably. Mr. Murphy said the City is not ashamed of the fact that it operates the electric facilities at a profit as it is being used to offset the costs of general City Govern- ment. 1 1 1 185 Councilwoman Gard noted that even though the $4,800,000 electric bond issue voted in by the citizens is a general obligation bond, it is being paid for by the revenues derived from the electrical funds. Jim Ramsay, 3323 Wilshire Drive, developer and real estate agent, agreed that there is a need for some type of fee increase. However, he felt the biggest dilemna facing government today is how to give all of the people what they want, desire, and need at a price they are willing to pay. He felt that somehow the goods and services just don't get together. He believes the fees are justifiable, but the question is their implementation so that they are fair. He felt that an increase from $200 to $2500 is not equitable, but that an increment -type buildup would be acceptable because the City doesn't have need for these funds right now. Mr. Ramsay said that the California Association of Realtors states that the average home is worth $50,000 today. He said that the 10-20% normal down payment would have to be increased. Because costs are going up faster than wages, some people aren't able to buy homes; thus the apartment -house complexes do not have occupancy problems because it is cheaper to rent. Mr. Ramsay sees the need for a complete E.I.R. with input from educated sources. City Attorney Murphy said that Proposition 13 directs that cities can adopt tax measures prior to July 1, 1978. After July 1, legislation must be passed by not less than 2/3 vote although it isn't clear if the 2/3 vote consists of all of the registered voters or all of the registered voters who vote, or what. Until that is clarified, it could be interpreted in such a way that it would be impossible to pass legis- lation because with a 2/3 standard vote, the City would be subject to a veto power of 1/3 of the voters, plus one. He said that because of this timing, the City proceeded in this manner. C. R. Chain, 3900 Cheryl Drive, asked how the fees would be implemented if they are adopted. He posed the question that if he were to construct a 100 -unit apartment complex and the fee is $1320 each, would the payment for the fees be in the form of a bond that could be prorated. Mayor Demsher replied that the development fee would be due at the time of completion of the construction. Councilman Kirkpatrick said Council has considered this problem and its first proposal was for payment of the fee at the time of the tentative map. It was changed to be due when the building permits were issued; however, the ordinance in its present form, provides for payment of the fees at the time of final inspection. In response to a question, City Attorney Murphy said that Redding is a General Law City and State Law does not allow for payment of the fees over a 10 -year period like an assessment district. He noted the City would like that State Law changed. Mr. Chain said that if he were to construct a 100 -unit apartment complex in 90 days, under the provisions of the ordinance, he would be faced with a $132,000 fee which would put him out of business. Mayor Demsher said it is Council's assumption that the development fees will be included in the financing. Councilman Pugh said that it would take an act of the State Legislature to change the law. He said the City has attempted to find an alternative way to spread the costs, but has been unsuccessful. Councilwoman Gard suggested that letters be written to the State Legis- lature regarding this dilemna. Mr. Chain said he believes the fees are needed, but it behooves members of Council to make it workable. He said developers must be able to pay the fees and live with them. Ken Murray, 1758 Manchester, Chairman of Citizens for Responsible Growth, said that he mainly represents small builders and developers and that Mr. Chain is in this group. He noted that most small builders work out of their homes and are under -capitalized. He stated that his group is not opposed to the principle of development fees; they would prefer fees to a construction moratorium. However, they do not feel that the fees have been justified probably because of insufficient dialogue. He questioned how the fees are structured; i.e., they are flat fees regardless of the size of the residence. Mr. Murray suggested appointing a committee to modify the fees and to research the possi- bility of changing the method of collection. He feels that the proposed method of collection will eliminate the small builders. He acknowledged that there are no enabling laws that would permit a City-wide assess- ment district procedure, but suggested that perhaps the City could add the development fees to the City utility bills. This would make it more manageable for the small developer. He stated he realized this would make a substantial change in the proposed ordinance and because we are within a time limit, suggests Council adopt the ordinances, as proposed, and instruct the staff to prepare emergency ordinances amending the areas concerning electric, sewer, and water. Mr. Murray said that if Council takes this step, it would be in the best interest of the builders, people, and the community. Tom Linville, 1047 Liberty Street, area resident for 35 years with service on the Planning Commission, the Traffic and Parking Commission, and the Forward Redding Committee, addressed-.Council.;n6ting-that.'.about:10'years ago an assessment district was formed to enlarge the sewer lines, build sidewalks, and pave the streets in his neighborhood. He said that they have paid these assessments, but someone will have to pay for the new sewerage system when the need arises. He said he proposes to construct 14 units. He believes some consideration should be given to eliminating fees for the older parts of town or redevelopment areas. Public Works Director Arness said that the proposed ordinances provide for a credit in areas where an assessment district exists or where charges have already been paid. Forest Hickson said this whole issue is an emotional thing and we are looking for a solution. It appears that those speaking against the proposed ordinance are made to feel as though they are asking for some- thing the people are not for. He said the vote on Proposition 13 was to cut things down. He felt the public is not given a dollar of service for a dollar expenditure. He said the voters voted for what they wanted and they will vote that way again. Councilman Pugh said that clarification is needed on what the 66-2/3 vote actually means. He said that normally 66-2/3 of the people do not vote, let alone agree on the vote. He noted that Proposition 13 passed by less than 66-2/3 in California. Mr. Pugh said the proposed ordinances will provide that all utilities will be self-supporting in the future. He noted that some of the area residents have already paid for three sewer plants and it isn't fair to ask them to pay for another. The fees will be put aside in a fund which will be used for construction only. Instead of proposing a $5 million -dollar bond issue for development of a plant in the future, at a higher interest rate, the City may have to borrow only $2 million dollars because the money has been placed in this fund. The older residents will pay only a very small portion of that new capacity charge. He said Council is looking out for the future of the City and its residents. Mayor Demsher said that the study that led up to the proposed fees indicated that existing property owners are subsidizing the developers. The fees were proposed to eliminate that problem. He felt the proposed fees are relieving the taxpayer in the spirit of Jarvis -Gann (Proposition 13 Initiative). Mr. Demsher said that in five years when the community 187 needs a new water or sewer system, these improvements can be made and growth won't stop, because the City will have a reserve fund from the development fees. He said he feels the question is how the fees should be collected and implemented. Brent Owens, 1867 Victoria, said he has a personal philosophy regarding E.I.R.'s and he didn't feel that persons speaking tonight were talking E.I.R. vs. negative declaration, but felt that the Council and Planning Commission have been guilty in the past of using an E.I.R. as a lever against a project and this same procedure has been used against the Council tonight. Mr. Owens said he didn't agree with the collection procedure but felt most of the fees are rational and have his support. He noted objection to the electrical fee of $100 when the electrical facilities produce a $2 million -dollar profit annually. He also questioned the storm drainage fee. The City has constructed extensive storm drainage facilities over the years and he did not feel this fee appropriate. Mr. Owens applauded Mr. Murray's position. He also said the City Council has acted in good faith and recalled that last November, when it was suggested that the City hire a consultant to review the proposed fees, the Council had agreed, and he didn't feel the Council could be blamed for acting in bad faith in this issue. He felt the ordinances need perfecting and asked the Council to show good faith in changing those portions in question to accommodate the desires of the developers. He asked if, in the opinion of the City Attorney, the ordinances can be modified after July 1 without jeopardizing them? City Attorney Murphy replied that this is possible as long as modifi- cations do not increase the taxes. Mr. Owens said that the storm drain and electric fees need modification in some manner. He said he felt comfortable with the fact that Council will continue to perfect these ordinances and work out the problems as they arise. Councilman Pugh asked if Council could alter the method of payment or the term of payment? City Attorney Murphy said he thought Council could as long as it doesn't increase the amount of the tax. Councilman Kirkpatrick asked if Council could change the ordinance to contain a service -type charge for the fees? City Attorney Murphy said that he knew of no way it could be done. He stated that the Federal requirements, as a condition of the sewer grants, could restrict the amount of service charges unless they are uniform. John Fitzpatrick, 4140 Quartz Court, Planning Commissioner, said that a near moratorium preceded development of the proposed fees. He believes the fees will increase the cost of single-family residences only about 3-4%. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Planning Commission thinks the fees are better than subjective judgments such as the cities of Davis and Petaluma have implemented (referring to Growth Control). He feels the apathy of the general public is a shame. Ed Limond, 2431 North Street, said that any person living in the community owes it to himself to determine the quality of his own life. It is ethically, morally, and legally right for each person to pay his own way for existance in the community. He said he doesn't feel obligated to subsidize the contractors who invite growth into the community which has previously enjoyed a slow growth pattern. The community has the right to ask these people to pay their own way. Mr. Limond said he if�z : feels the City of Redding is well managed and, despite all of the disclaimers, supports the elected City Council and the proposed fees. Delores Ellis, Redding Area League of Women Voters, read a position statement of the League in support of the proposed development fees. She urged adoption of the fees so that funds for development of parks and financing of new public facilities would be available. Tom Arias, 4175 Meander Drive, agreed with the ordinances as proposed. He said the City is growing at such a fast pace and the funds for improvements must be readily available or Redding will experience major catastrophes on its streets and in the capacities of its sewers. He said the funds are needed to build streets, bridges, etc., and to permit the City to move forward in an orderly manner. Dan Frost, Attorney, applauded Council in moving quickly; it makes good sense and places the burden where it should be. He said he doubts any businessman would invest in a company that isn't supporting its own way and feels the City should be self supportive also. Vi Klaseen, 595 Mary Street, said she supports the fees. Although she feels we are in the third scene of the third act, and hasn't agreed with every scene, at this point, this is what has to be done. Ken Murray reemphasized his position of being in favor of the fees. He directed a question to the City Attorney asking if, in consultation with other attorneys, it has been pointed out that the City may not levy part of the fees as a service charge? City Attorney Murphy replied in the negative. Mr. Murray reiterated his proposal that Council amend the fee structure enabling the single-family residence buyer to pay for the fees as a service charge allocated over a 10 -year period. Frank Hanna, 3743 Churn Creek Road, said he is a small contractor and noted that because of the development fees, the value of each existing home in the City will be increased by about $2000 and suggested that perhaps a way could be devised to tap this extra value. Mayor Demsher said this had been discussed, but doubts..that there is a way it can be accomplished. Sean O'Hara, P.O. Box 111, Old Shasta, said the what, when and why of the issue have been answered, but the question is how. He felt the fees are needed, but the focus lies with the how. He deftly asked if an old dog can learn new tricks, and maintained that there is a way to accomplish an alternative method of payment. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard that the Public Hearing be closed. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Councilman Kirkpatrick asked if the meeting should be adjourned to another time for consideration of amending the ordinances; legally, what is the next step. City Attorney Murphy said that to attempt to change the ordinances at this time would pose some very serious legal problems. He said the City has one suit pending with the possibility of two additional ones being filed. The temporary restraining order has been lifted, but there is no assurance that it will be withdrawn. He said that time is running out. Councilman Pugh said that to make changes without a firm handle on the Federal Grant program and without the assurance of the City Attorney and his consultants may jeopardize the ordinances. 189 Mayor Demsher said he felt that most people realize that if possible, Council will make the method of payment and collection easier and more acceptable. He said he supports a thorough and complete investigation into getting legislation passed to allow the City to do some of the things we want to do that we can't do now. Councilman Fulton said he didn't feel much better about the fees after the completion of the Marston study, and that perhaps the people should be the ones to decide who pays the fees. He didn't feel it should be thrust upon the citizens just to meet the July 1 deadline. Councilwoman Gard said that the most absolute form of growth control would be a moratorium because of lack of services. She would like for Council to have some option. Mrs. Gard said Council is obligated to provide for the future and it must be done. She supports the develop- ment fees, but agrees that alternate means of collection should be investigated. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick ratifying the decision of BAR granting a negative declaration for Ordinance Nos. 1390 through 1394, inclusive. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh,seconded by Councilman Fulton that full reading of Ordinance Nos. 1390 through 1394, inclusive, be waived, and that the City Attorney be instructed to scan same. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick declaring Ordinance No. 1390 an urgency ordinance and approving its adoption. Ordinance No. 1390 is an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Title 16 of the Redding Municipal Code by adding thereto a new Chapter 16.42, pertaining to construction taxes. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - Fulton Absent: Councilmen - None Ordinance No. 1390 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick declaring Ordinance No. 1391 an urgency ordinance and approving its adoption. Ordinance No. 1391 is an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Title 4 of the Redding Municipal Code, by adding thereto a new Chapter 4.26, pertaining to sewer and water connection charges in subsequently annexed areas. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - Fulton Absent: Councilmen - None Ordinance No. 1391 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick declaring Ordinance No. 1392 an urgency ordinance and approving its adoption. Ordinance No. 1392 is an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Title 14 of the Redding Municipal Code by repealing Sections 14.08.040, 14.08.070, 14.08.130, 14.08.370, 14.12.050, 14.16.100, and 14.16.110, and substituting therefor new Sections 14.08.070, 14.08.130, 14.08.370, 14.12.050, 14.16.100, and 14.16.110, pertaining to utilities. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - Fulton Absent: Councilmen - None 190 -b Ordinance No. 1392 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard declaring Ordinance No. 1393 an urgency ordinance and approving its adoption. Ordinance No. 1393 is an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending Title 16 of the Redding Municipal Code by adding thereto Chapter 16.05, pertaining to Park Funds. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - Fulton Absent: Councilmen - None Ordinance No. 1393 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard declaring Ordinance No. 1394 an urgency ordinance and approving its adoption. Ordinance No. 1394 is an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Redding amending the Redding Municipal Code by adding thereto Chapter 17.42, pertaining to park and recreational land dedications and in lieu fees. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - Fulton Absent: Councilmen - None Ordinance No. 1394 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. At the hour of 9:45 P.M., Mayor Demsher declared a recess. At the hour of 10:00 P.M., the Mayor reconvened the meeting. RESOLUTION - Parking Prohibition on Parsons Drive MOTION.: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that Resolution No. 78-96 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding prohibiting parking at all times on the south side of Parsons Drive from the east property line of Blueview Street (extended) westerly for 110 feet. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Resolution No. 78-96 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION - Parking Prohibition on Placer Street MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that Resolution No. 78-97 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding prohibiting parking at all times on the north side of Placer Street for a distance of 100 feet easterly from the centerline of Magnolia Street. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Resolution No. 78-97 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION - Flashing Red Light Stop Sign at Alta Mesa and Hartnell MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard that Resolution No. 78-98 be adopted, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding amending the "Traffic Control Map" by establishing three way flashing red light and stop sign control at the intersection of Hartnell Avenue and Alta Mesa Drive. 1 7 191 Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Resolution No. 78-98 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. ORDINANCE - Enterprise Annex No. 78-2 MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that full reading of Ordinance No. 1389 be waived, and that the City Attorney be instructed to scan same. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick that Ordinance No. 1389 be adopted, an ordinance of the City Council of the �L- S City of Redding approving the annexation of certain uninhabited territory designated Enterprise Annex No. 78-2 to the City of Redding. Voting was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen - Fulton, Gard, Kirkpatrick, Pugh, and Demsher Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None Ordinance No. 1389 is on file in the office of the City Clerk. COUNCIL -STAFF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - Location for Farmers Market City Manager Brickwood reported that the Committee has selected the area adjoining City Hall as the location for the State Certified Farmers Market. The area has plenty of trees and is shady and Shasta Growers are eager to use it. Mr. Brickwood said a report on its progress will be given at :)W Council's July 17 meeting. MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick approving the aforestated recommendation, instructing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary agreement, and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes SETTING PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed uses of Revenue Sharing Funds and 1978-79 Budget Appropriations Assistant City Manager Courtney reviewed his memo to Council dated June 22, 1978, stating that the amendments to the Revenue Sharing law, effective '> J January 1, 1977, impose new publication and hearing requirements on recipients of entitlement funds. The new legislation requires that the legislative body hold a public hearing on the entire budget of the local agency and on the proposed uses of Revenue Sharing funds prior to or at the time of the adoption of the budget. For this reason, it is recommended that Council schedule a Public Hearing for 7:30 P.M., August 21, 1978. MOTION: Made by Councilwoman Gard, seconded by Councilman Kirkpatrick approving the aforestated request for setting a hearing date. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATION ITEMS City Manager Brickwood recommended that this meeting be adjourned to 12:00 Noon, June 28, 1978, to consider the agenda items of the City Attorney per- taining to Personnel and Labor Relations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at the hour of 10:10 P.M., Mayor Demsher declared the meeting adjourned to 12:00 Noon, Wednesday, June 28, 1978. QOVED: ATTEST: Mayor < C ty Clerk �I