Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 1976-11-22 233 City Council, Adjourned Regular Meeting Police Dept. & Council Chambers Bldg. Redding, California November 22 , 1976 7:30 P.M. At the hour of 7:30 P.M. , Ma�yor Fulton called the meeting to order, � announcing that this is a combined meeting of the Redding City Council and the Redding Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on adoption of Amendment No. 2 to the Redevelopment Plan for Redding Midtown Project No. 1 . The following members of the Redding City Council were present: Anderson, Gard, Pugh, and Fulton. Absent: Councilman Demsher The following members of the Redding Redevelopment Agency were present: Williams , Green, Peterson, Hullinger , and Limond. Absent: McDaniel and Redmon Members of City staff present were as follows: City Manager Brickwood, Assistant City Manager Courtney, City Attorney Murphy, Director of Public Works Arness, Director of Planning and Community Development Harris , Traffic Engineer Hamilton, Housing Administrator Henson (also Executive Director of Redding Redevelopment Agency) and Cit�y Clerk B rayton. Also present was Joseph E. Coomes , Special. Redevelopment Lega1 Counsel to the City Attorney. Mayor Fulton stated that because of the limited capacity of the Council Chambers, the meeting and public hearing would recess and reconvene at Room 116 of the Civic Auditorium at 8:00 P.M. At the hour of 8:00 P.M. , the meeting and joint public hearing was re- convened at the Civic Auditorium . j�3 �. . Earl Henson submitted the following exhibits pertaining to the public ' hearing; Notice re Moving Meeting from Council. Chambers to Auditorium Certification of Publication of Notice of Joint Public Hearing on Midtown Pro ject No. I, Propo sed Amendment No. 2 Certificate of Mailing - Notice to propert�y owners of existing area with attachments Certificate of Mailing - Notice to taxing agencies with attachments These documents were received as Exhibits No. lA , 1B, 2, and 3. Mayor Fulton stated that the California Redevelopment Law under which this public hearing is being held requires certain procedures and he � therefore requested persons making statements and giving testimony be , sworn in. The following staff inembers were sworn in: Cit�y Manager , Brickwood, Assistant City Manager Courtney, Cit�y Attorney Murphy, ' Director of Planning and Community Development Harris , Housing Administrator Henson, Director of Public Works Arness , Traffic Engineer Hamilton, and Special Redevelopment Legal Counsel Coombs . � Persons in the audience who were sworn in were Chuck Zink, Marjorie � Cantrell, Jack Dill.ey, and Bob Spaid. � Mr. Coom'es stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the amendment to the Redevelopment P1an and that findings and determinations would be made similar to those for the adoption of the original project area. Mr. Coombs reviewed the findings and determinations , a11 of which are in- cluded in the proposed ordinance approving and adopting the amendment. ,' � i __- ...--- _ .. � 234 Ear1 Henson pointed out on the Vu Graph the area proposed for con- struction of ad'�ditional parking for the project. He noted that this amendment came about as a result of a survey conducted by the Department of Planning and Community Devel.opment which indicated a shortage of parking within the project area. Subsequently, the mer- chants of the downtown area petitioned the City Council to provide ' additional parking and to use tax increment financing to fund the project. ; The proposed parking structure would be a mirror image of the structure in the north end of the California Street parking lot, directly west from the Payless store. This petition was referred to the Redevelopment Agency for study and consideration. The Redevelopment Agency con- ; sidered the petition and, with the assistance of outside con'sultants , developed a financial p1an. An amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and a report was then submitted to the City�Council with a request that a public hearing be he1d. Said amendment and report were also sub- mitted to the Planning Comrriission for its review and a report as to its conformance to the General Plan and to the environment. The tax in- crement method of financing is a process where increased assessed valuation over the base year is sequestered by the Redevelopment Agency with the assistance and consent of the City Council, and such funds would be used to finance additional parking. The cost of the proposed structure is estimated to be $1 , 005, 500, and it wi11 provide an additional 156 parking spaces. It is estimated that a 25 year bond issue at 7. 5% would require $84,000 annually to service the debt. Mr. Henson submitted the following documents as exhibits: Certificate of Certain Official Actions with attachments Report Regarding Amendment No . 2 to Redevelopment Plan Report and Recommendation of Redding Planning Commission with atta chments Initial Study. - 1600 B1o.ck Parking Structure on California Street Parking Study, 1976, dated May 18, 1976, Revised June l , 1976, with exhibits attached Report and Recolmmendation of Traffic and Parking Commission • � ' Negative Declaration of Board of Administrative Review - 10/26/76 These docume�nts weI e received as Exhibits 4 through 11 . � Councilman Anderson asked Mr . Henson for the assessed valuation of � the project area and �was advised that the frozen base is $1 ,270, 975 . He further stated tha�t in 75-76 , the assessed val.ue had risen from that frozen base to $2 ,064,609; 76-77 it had risen to $2 , 308 ,920; and for ` 77-78, indications are that the assessed value wi11 be $2,462 ,670. We f anticipate that upon the development of Parcel 06-4, which is presentl.y an undeveloped parce'1 across from Payless , the assessed value of the � project area wi11 be $2 ,617, 465 . '� � In response to Councilman Anderson's question as to our existing debt ' in the project area, Mr. Henson replied that the original debt was approximately $550,000; however, the Redeve'lopment Agency has paid � the City approximately $80,000 on the first year's tax increment, and ' the present principal ba'lance is $512 , 000. I � � I ' ` , � . � - - ' --- �_., _._ ._ 235 Mr. Coomes introduced Exhibit 12 , Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 2 , with Map Exhibits A, B, and C . Mr. Henson introduced and discussed Exhibit 13, which included� Letter from Joseph E. Coombs , regarding impact of proposed project a.mendment on school districts Letter from Robert Rehberg in response to Joe Coombs' letter Letter to Richard Haake , Shasta High School District, in regard to proposed Amendment No . 2 to Redevelopment Plan Original petitions from Mall Merchants requesting structured parking in the south end of the Ma1l Letter from Blyth Eastman Dillr�n Co. dated Apri1 9, 1976 In addition to the aforementioned documents , Mr. Henson referred to a petition received from� members of the business community in other commercial areas of Redding, which petition was submitted to the City Council at its meeting of November 15 . The actual meaning of the petition was not clear. Mr. Spaid, one of the sponsors of the petition, said that the petition should be considered as fi.led with the Cit�y Council at its meeting of November 15, and therefore it is not a part of this proceeding. Mr. Coomes spoke briefly concerning the impact of the amendment on school districts, noting that there is recourse for school districts affected by tax increment financing. He referred to sections of the Education Code and the Redevelopment Law. Mr. Zink, President of the Downtown Ma11 Merchants Association, spoke on behalf of 73 businesses in the Mall. He emphasized the need for additional parking, pointing out that such parking will benefit not only persons in the project area but throughout the downtown Redding area. Marjorie Cantrell also spoke of the need for additional parking, citing the reasons given by Mr. Zink. Mr. Dilley, speaking in favor of the proposed amendment, noted that the Downtown Merchants had vol.untarily assessed themselves to help the Cit�y of Redding purchase parking lots on California Street. According to Mr. Dill.ey, these assessments were paid for approximately nine �years , prior to construction of the Ma11, and the parking lots constructed by the City made Redding eligible for the redeve'lopment money for the Downtown Ma1'1. The City Clerk advised Ma�yor Fulton,that Mr. Frank E. Sauer, 2326 Washington Street, representing the Redding School District, had sub- ' mitted a slip indicating he wished to speak in opposition to the Amend- ment. It was determined that Mr. Sauer was not in attendance. � Mr. Spaid, 2001 Park Marina Drive, representing the Vill.a'ge Pl.aza, Cypress Square, Mt. Shasta Ma11, Park Marina Village, and I-5 merchants , stated that after many meeting with persons who had signed the petition submitted to Council at the November 15 meeting (and referred to hereinbefore), it was generally agreed that 70% of the complaints and disagreements were due to misunderstandings and lack of detailed information. He stated that it has been decided that a Redding Area Merchants Association be formed to represent al.l merchants and business people throughout the City of Redding, to create � better understanding and unity. Mr. Spaid did not speak in opposition , to the amendment. _. ... ._. ._.. -- --- - _ 1 236 Mayor Fulton determined that there was no further testimony or evidence to be received. MOTION: Made .by Cottncilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwornan Gard that the ;public hearing be closed. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes � i , Mayor Fulton reces ied the Council meeting at 9:00 P.M. I ' The Redding Redevelopment Agency went into session and Redding � Redevelopment Agen{c�y Resolution No. RRA 76-12 was adopted, a resolution of the Redding Redevelopment Agency recommending � adoption of proposed Amendment No�. 2 to the Redeve'lopment Plan ,_ ` for the Redding MidtOwn Project No. I, California R-120. � The Redding City Coi cil meeting reconvened at 9:05 P.M. Councilman Pugh indicated he favors the amendment, noting that although the need for additional parking may not be critical at the moment, with development of vacant property in the core area there will be a need, and the cost to the City woul.d be less if the project is undertaken now and by the proposed method of financing. Mr. Pugh also referred to the obl.igation of the City to provide parking . in a C-4 zone and defended the zoning which provides for high density development. Councilwoman Gard was in agreement with the state- ments of Councilman Pugh and added that she believes it is an im- portant fact that this project does not take an additional piece of property off the tax ro11s. Councilman Anderson spoke in opposition to the amendment, stating that he is opposed to�, tax increment financing as it takes tax do1'lars away from other agencies which cou'ld result in an increased tax rate by those agencies. Mr . Anderson said that, according to his com- putations , it wi11 take approximately $133, 000 per year to serdice the $1 ,500 ,000 bond indebtedness for 25 years at 7- 1/2% interest. Mr. Anderson also feels that the City should move out of the parking lot business . Cit�y Attorney Murpk,y said that the financial plan of this project only � proposes to se11 $1 , 000,000 in bonds that would bear 7- 1/2% interest. The remaining $500 ,'000, which is the principal balance of the origina'1 loan to the Redding Redeve'lopment Agency for underground parking, bears an interest rate of 3%. Thus interest cost will be slightly less than the figure used by Councilman Anderson. Mayor Fulton expre Ised some concern about the nature of financing, saying that he finds it difficult to believe that the sequestering of these tax dollars is not goin'g to hurt somebody. He expressed surprise that the school district did not make a presentation at the hearing. The Ma�yor sees a need for additional parking, but feels Council should be aware of how it is to'be paid for. He referred to the fact that the law regarding iricrement'financing is to be changed January 1 , and ques- tioned whether this method of financing is good. City Attorne�y Murphy advised the Mayor that the basic tax increment ' financing law wi11 not cease after January 1 , 1977, but will be modified. If the procedural requirements concerning this amendment are not com- pleted before the end of this year, Mr. Murphy said the project woul.d � not fail but it would be more difficult to complete and might be delayed. ; Mayor Fulton asked if there were further comments . There being none, � he stated that Council would act on written or oral objections to the � Amendment. � � t i i { � � f - - .------ -_ . �__ ---______._ __._ _ __ 237 , MOTION: Made by Councilman Pugh, seconded by Councilwoman Gard overruling written and oral objections to the Amendment. The Vote: Unanimous Ayes Councilman Pugh offered Ordinance No. 1295 for first reading, an Ordinance of the City of Redding, Cal.ifornia, amending Ordinance 1\To. 974, as amended by Ordinance No. 1173 , approving and adopting Amendment No . 2 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redding Midtown Project No . I, California R- 120. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business , at the hour of 9:20 P. M. , Mayor Fulton adjourned the meeting to 12:00 Noon, November 29 , 1976 . APPROVED: �. � I�r Mayor ATTEST: ity Clerk � _ 238 � � 4 E � � � , f ' i `t � � � � i i E � i �