Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 07/07/1975CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ;AUG. 1 1975 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA Minutes of July 7, 1975 The meeting was called to order at the hour of 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Petaluma City Hall, Post and English Streets, Petaluma, California, by the Chairman Helen Putnam. Present: Commissioners Brunner, Cavanagh, Hilligoss, Mattei, and Chairman Putnam. Absent: Commissioners Harberson and Perry. PROPOSED Executive Director Robert Meyer explained to the Agency BUDGET FOR Deputy Director Frank Gray had put together a combined 1975-76 budget for the Housing Authority and the Redevelopment FISCAL YEAR Agency, but explained theyreally had no guidelines to go by to prepare a budget for these agencies. He further explained to the Commissioners any budget they would approve at this meeting would have to be requested as a loan from the City Council for the Agency. He further stated if the Redevelopment Agency was unable to repay any of the monies allocated for a budget, then it would be an outright expenditure from City funds for the Redevelopment Agency from the City's General Fund. Mr. Meyer indicated the Commissioners should set aside a certain amount of money to carry the Redevelopment Agency through at least one year and possibly two years: He felt the Redevelopment genc.y shrdild determine what they wish to accomplish i_n the way of redevelopment for the next year and then adopt either a specific budget or a general budget. He also reminded the Agency, the Housing Authority for the City of Petaluma has not been established and it may be the Agency would want to combine the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority into a Community Development Agency. Mr. Meyer stated he had asked the Deputy Director Frank Gray to outline the program for the Agency for the next year. The Deputy Director addressed the Agency stating the program of service for the Redevelopment Agency has been prepared for the next year, but it might be well to look at a two-year process. The budget, as presented to the Council, is only half of the program and it would also be necessary to set up a budget for the Housing Authority. One of the problems facing the Agency during the next year is the designation of the survey area. Mr. Gray explained this is a very large area in which the Agency would be looking at redevelopment. This can be done through the Planning Commission with recommendation made -by the Commission to the Agency. Mr. Gray explained it would probably be a two-month process to designate a survey area. The Planning Commission would probably have.to hold a study session and one or two Planning Commission meetings and it would probably involve two meetings'of the Redevelopment Agency. The survey area is a very general type area and does not get down -to specifics as to where redevelopment would take place. After the survey area is determined, the Agency would then Redevelopment Agency Minutes ,July 7, 1975 PROPOSED look at specific project areas for plans.- He stated this is BUDGET FOR where the central business district would probably be the 1975-76 prime candidate. After this determination is made, the FISCAL YEAR Agency would then decide whether there are specific projects (Continued) that need to be considered as blighted areas as defined by the State law or whether there are not any such areas. Assuming there is a need at that level, then the City would go into a specific plan for a redevelopment plan by the Agency. Mr. Gray said he would expect to have an answer on the need by Christmas time. Assuming there -is a need for a downtown program, it would be necessary to pull together some of the various programs which have already been accomplished --such as the parking plan, the traffic plan, the Rimov Plan, and take the best parts -of these plans and apply them to the project area. At this poiait the Planning Commission becomes involved and it would be necessary to call a series of public hearings. Mr. Gray advised that a great deal of public information would be necessary in order to inform all of the people who would be concerned with the project. He further stated the Redevelopment Law requires a great deal of publishing of public hearings, notifying property owners in the area, and receiving input from citizens who would be concerned with the project area. It would be necessary to hold public hearings -by -the legislative body and the Redevelopment Agency: If determhied there .s'a need- for eedfor the project, the actual project would be implemented. -He foresees -the actual project implementation about.the middle<of the second year. He feels the adoption of the plan will take about six months with -three months falling in each fiscal year. Mr. Gray said he was hopeful that for 1976-77 the tax increment could be used to help finance part of the Agency's -expenses. He further stated there would be a need for close cooperation between the Plan- ning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency; and as the program progresses, there would be a great deal more involvement in staff time and Agency time and at that time there would be a definite need for Agency personnel To clarify a question posed by Chairman Putnam, Mr. Gray advised that once the Agency has established a debt, it can then use tax isncrement financing." It is intended primarily for the project itself, but can be used for administrative costs incurred determining what the projects are and if there is a specific need for a Redevelopment Agency. If the determination is made -there is no weed for a Redevelopment Agency then the funds become an expenditure out of the General City Funds because the Agency would not be able to collect tax increment and would have no source of income. Commissioner Mattei asked what the time schedule would be -on -.the economic analysis now being made-aud how this would result in the work of the Redevelopment Agency. Deputy Director Frank Gray advised he expected the analysis to be completed sometime in October, just about the time the -Agency=would be looking at a specific project area. Commissioner Brunner expressed a fear that perhaps redevelopment would not be the way to go in the downtown area,, and he felt perhaps upgrading some of the buildings in the area might be a better solution. He also expressed fear that people in the area would -voice opposition to any redevelopment plan. Mr. Gray agreed with Mr. Brunner stating he visualized the project more as a revitalization -2- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 7, 1975 PROPOSED process rather than a redevelopment process. Mr. Gray also BUDGET FOR felt the Downtown Improvement Association was one of the 1975-76 instigators of the revitalization or redevelopment plan for FISCAL YEAR the downtown area and they are anxious to get started on (Continued) some type of project to revitalize the area. Mr. Gray further stated that between now and October, the Agency would be concerned with a defining process in determining a large survey area in which there would be specific studies made and define the need and work on solutions. The solutions might necessarily not mean redevelopment. The Commission then reviewed the combined budget for the Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency as prepared by the Deputy Director Frank Gray. The total amount for the combined budget is $66,653. Commissioner Mattei questioned the amount of money set aside in Section .326 for professional and special services. Mr. Gray explained these funds would be geared toward the project plan when the Agency actually got down to redevelopment. The architect -engineer -planner would be an area where special expertise would be needed and outside people would have to be hired. It would be necessary in some cases to hire an appraiser to determine the value of lands to be purchased. The economic analyst would look at means of financing and the attorney would be required for special legal services by an attorney who would be an expert in redevelopment procedures. All the services in Section .326 would be outside people. Executive Director Robert Meyer advised that since the Housing Authority has not been set up, he would suggest the Redevelopment Agency set aside a certain amount of money which would require Council approval before expenditure. The budget, as presented for the combined Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency (Community Development Commission) Budget Section 45 base request, was for $66,653 and the City Manager's recommendation totalled $58,470. It was brought to the Agency`s attention that part of the functions of the Housing Authority had been transferred to the County of Sonoma; however, this was a minor portion and some expenditures would still be necessary by the.City in a budget to continue the work of the Housing Authority. Chairman Putlam indicated even though a preliminary or proposed budget had been presented to the Agency, the expenditures from the budget should be made very cautiously andieach item expended should be given very careful attention. Deputy Director Frank Gray indicated to the Agency that as each expenditure was proposed, it would be given to the Agency for their approval and agreed that a lump sum be set aside for the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Putnam asked the General Counsel Matt Hudson's advice on how the Agency should proceed and he indicated it would be proper for the Agency to propose a motion requesting the City Council for the funds, or if they prefer they could adopt a resolution to forward to the City Council. Either way would be acceptable and would achieve the same results. The amount determined by the Agency was $50,000 because actual work would not begin until October when it would be necessary to expend funds. Mr. Bob Wells then asked two questions of the Commission: One was what was the net income from the parking meters to which Mr. Scharer replied between $15,000 and $18,000. The meters gross approximately $40,000. Mr. Wells stated it was his understanding that many people are in favor of removing the parking meters from the downtown area and this source of revenue would then be lost to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Wells' second question was if the -3- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 7, 1975 PROPOSED assessments were frozen in the downtown area and the tax BUDGET FOR increment used for the redevelopment and rehabilitation 1975-76 would this apply only to the City taxes or could it apply to FISCAL YEAR the County taxes as well. Mr. Meyer stated the whole purpose (continued) of this type of financing was to freeze the assessments and the additional amount of money would apply to the Redevelopment Agency. This would include all taxes. Commissioner Mattei clarified this statement by stating it would not apply to the whole City, only to the project area. Mr. Skip Sommer then spoke to the Agency. Mr. Sommer is from Corte Madera and has recently indicated he plans to refurbish one of the older buildings in the downtown area. He stated he did feel that redevelopment and revitalization does not always mean demolition and he felt this matter should be brought out by the press. He further suggested the removal of some of the signs along Petaluma Boulevard and a pattern of compatible colors for buildings which adjoin each other. Mr. Sommer further suggested that undergrounding utilities might be another step toward beautifying the downtown area. Mr. Sommer indicated he had read quite a few articles in the Argus Courier commenting on the redevelopment of the downtown area and mentioning the Director of Community Development Frank Gray as well as Larry Martin and hoped the two agencies could somehow combine and not allow Mr. Martin's talents to go to waste. Chairman Putnam said she recognized Mr. Sommer's concern for old buildings because of his interest in the Old Mill in the downtown area, and also felt that Mr. Gray had given considerable thought to preserving historical buildings in the area. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Mattei, seconded by Commissioner Cavanagh, asking the City Council to designate a sum of $50,000 with each expenditure brought back to the Agency and to the Council for approval. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: ���RecinigkcMetary