HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/12/1976i ry .,. a ♦ .i i i 1 i. , . i. i , I i '
rSrION
�� :• °PE'lALUMA COMMUNITY ,DEVELOPMENT 4;Cb MMIS
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING,
Apr X1Z! ,192,6 u 7 3
MgndaY , P' 0. P, ,M.
CALL 4-O' ORDER Th "e .Adj ourried Mee't ng' of the ,Pe't'altima,,'Community. Development
Commission the n
Petaluma P.l n' and the Project
Area C l ommittee_ was called toorder bymClia relen Putnam
'
at the' hour of 7.30 p , m. :.r
ROLL CAL Petaluma Community Development,. Commissi:on'::_
i'
g.�
�' � r vana h ' Harberson, Hilligoss, and e
.. P_res'ent•• Commissioners Ca:
Chai- rman.Putnam,
- Abstenti'on's: Commissioners Brunner., 'Ma and Perry
PetdTtima Planning "' ,Coin n ssior► : ;;
Ptes'eh : Commissi one rs. Head,.,Waters:,, Wright, and
H'illigoss
Absent: Commissioners Popp 'and Bond
CL'ARIFI'CAT.ION OF Genera Cou son - e
nsel sMa•t hew � H p `
� x lained th e reason why
ABSZENTIONS •BY C'ommlss oners rBrunner, Mattei. -'and Perry • wer.e -mot seated :on
MEMBERS° 'OF _THE the dais, within other members of -.the Petaluma ,Community Develop -
PE CAL'UMA COMMUNITY mein Commission: " He
had advised °the,'three,Commissioners their,
DEVELOPMENT participation in, certain aspects of,.,'the business of the Petaluma
c: Y p omml`
`' ;ma..' eons,ttpossible
•
OMMISSION " , Communt. Develo meat C fission; y ute a
' either own.
property in �the.,o Pr e
Conflict""
ro erty t or vdotbusines -sT Commissioners
He had., there-•
fore,`ddv fised them' to abstain._from,votatig .on.;the Plan for the Project Area.. The
same rule, would -apply to their � ject Area.
the Commf, th he .Pro
consideration °�o e" Plan for ,t
Mr Hud "son - - advised aft discussion at ssion level,°mighlt possibly tend,, to
ietfor or�,
e the el g _ air
I Y 1 f.' is thatote f tin a,tolinfluence
Political ,Plractices mp'ti 5 way...
Y P p p P ' a member of the? ,Petaluma
Commun t. Develo tutes artssiontwishes it floo °r as.;a private
or anot tself :, If
C. '" ment Commi es to s eak from the
p ices Commission's
this would `be erm under the Fair- Politica^l'Practi
th o u gh ' s
: rule an one
he s
adv sethe f ur t her a
Comissioners toadhere to it ino ^ rder, Ito. � p rotect themselves
' ,o ,
and to } „pro'tect the process of re`d'evelopment. If a'plan is ado,p.ted<, there' will. be
certa 'in points where. some " O'ff , the' Comm- issioners -could vote on -the matter.. Mr'.
Hudson
stated, as the' �Commission, gets 'further , into the process, the matter may
become •even snore comp�li'dated:'
wth 'tng '
fromthe audi At.torne he did •.'feel in 'c,omple.te disagreement,
Sp, eaki` enc' fated she 'was no,t
he advice of the y ,' the matter was being: carried
to ext n � Project- -Area and ,. .not own, roper -t • 'ince he merely',
had :A, reme's whe Commi'ssion'er Brunner was not able to partic �s
He .felt the Commission
a' `us e' b � c r - very P Y -
iaould,, f• rom e time ' t'6 't f
n h me; iiid' ems
;thelves in: ;a ver difficult: position. as - every yore
have agreemen a be in ion.' Chairman. P the dais would
mous each decif I „ persons el able to en posed a hypothetical
g
. Putn_am then „ an A our- e
question to the ro e Sin theeProf'ect A perhaps both she and
on s
Commis n ccqufit S udson:ty r.e ,, how would,
a
`Gener P p r_ l Mr.. H_ udson: -4said _:he._almost ho ed
stoner Harberso •
this �would en °because if the'.Commissio et
P
pp le on � t.
unction wi o eo ners.1buhd� ". s in, he 136sition, whet
themselve t
n t on w hree: members could `res,ume ,the'
. „ other t -
G e Commissio
a ,quorum would be disqualified_ ,, ,the _ __ P.
P
and then all members could vote 2
-
anon r ` .
�.Th'en Execut ve Directo Aobert''Meyer .introduced' the =;Speci'a1,' Counsel, for the Community
Development
Commission `Mr - Joseph" Coomes : Chairman. Putnam advised the members of
11, g g: g s had been made foci ommis-
- -� h^ o last mo arran is a member_who _ �.___
sneHillgosst aomember wecould _ vo and Commissioner Mattei,- - Y` 4
ti
W_.
b r the situation.
could not vote to meet i�
Coomes he agreed with-Mr. Huds.on" and' the manner in which
he has , analyzed - the situation.` `Mr=:' Cbciuio-,§` ;;b;t appeared, before - the Fai-r
Po Practices Commission, along with-some City Attorneys and ,'other legal-
Counsels to try to have the Fair, Po_lIti`c:al j? Commission clarify their
regulations. The matter of voting on proj does-not solely, relate to redevelop-
ment , plans. The problem- exists' in any .major public proj'ect,, - and he stated• , it is
a problem 'public' of fllciall!§ are, going- to have to to and work with,,;under the
new-law.'
APPROVAL OF The •mlnutes of the, Regular' ',MeOting of 'the Petd,l'-uma Community
MINUTES Development of April 5, 1976, were Ap
proved - as
mailed.
AMENDMENT T& PCbC Resolution.. #10 amending thec By'lawa.,S_ectidn, 4 Quorum to
BY—LAWS read:
PCDC RES '#10 "The powers of the, agency shall be vested' -in the
members -thereof. -in pf fice. from time ,to, . .'Four
members 'shall constit-Iite, a quorum for the purpose
of conduct ing.'Its business and exerdising,its - powers
and for all other purposes provided that a smaller
number may: adjourn from t1me,-'to time until. the
quorum•I§ obtained Unless Qtherwise-tequired by:
law, action may be.take-n.by the agency upon- -,a vote.
of a majority :of the members present. a-t- the time
the vote� is taken-,."
was introduce&�by Commissioner Harberso secondedby.,Qommis_
sioner Rilligoss,, and adopted .by' five aff- 'irmat-i and :t,,WO':
abstaining Votes. Noted for the record, Is the ;f act that..,
commissiorier was permitted to -:v6te - on - this
REVIEW OF The prelim- ary draft,-, City of Petaluma Community Development
REDEVELOPMENV'- 'Comm-ission.Central.Business,District--,Redevelopment Plan dated
PLAN April , 1476 Recording Secretary and ordered
f iled, Deputy'. Director . - Gray reviewed the Plan, in its
dur l ng.,. the. o
course. f. - the review ;several c-
corre
entirety; and„ I __ - 11 i - - I
tibhs"and addendums: were-made the -preliminary draft..�plan.- Mr. Gtay t-he
.f act the Plah the Commissioners --were;,fevieT67ing, tonight Vas, a�' . preliminary plan, and
he-was asking for input-from both-the: Petaluma Coinmuni,,ty�peyei-1 Commission and
the Planning C'ommis'sion - before the -f inal draft plan was - formulated:., He, also -asked-
the Special Counsel Joseph Coomes.to explain to,",the - Development Commission
and -thePianning Commission _the purpose of the documents which wbuldi�be reviewed by,
the Commission dUring - the next .s'dveral mopths>._
'available
Mr. - Commissions, stating redevelopment- is a, process
unaer-St4te Iawi f dr cities to undertake.in eligible project areas,. The eligibility
of a pro
j requi±es a finding •a made : that It is primarily a blighted ,area --
- g-n�a - c6miy na 'f actor 'such "as��ecbnqm t -8,oc-id-1
b light -md ahn
i i t ""h &4&.planning fa ctors
ac tors
which may be found to exist in an area which impede normal development-'processes and
requlr'6�--pulA- asslstaric,e to provide' redevelopmdnt.,;- One of the d6cuments....-that. wi
'd`e9cribd these' character ist ein the Project. Area. and what should be ;done to allevi-
ate the prbbl6ms is the report ,the .Agency wil prepare for submis'sion to the City
'Cotin-cil consideration, when public hearings.. would- beheld on the, Plan..,.- - This
'r . ep . o , r . t wi 1.1 1- t
go in "il relocation, and the con"
o such r thi rgs a s economic
ditidris in' the' Project Area; - The second is the, .ETR_whidh is- under -
- State 'the Plan_ Oncel described 'the con-
ditions in the Project Area-which.sh6uld•be alleviated .and .and cocorrected, tjip. Redevelop -
devel.op-
ment is the -iiistrument - by whi h this is done,. - EIR f ormat: is typical. to any,
--- ot-hef ,,pre'�pared-unde-r-3-S-t-a-t-e-Lax4-:The-Tfiain-:difrf:eitence-is-the-pr-qj-ejp-t-is nqf.s
peci ic
but is .4 25-ye at 'plan, to be contemplated,,.and..to.,ha:Ve - degree -of flexibility.
The Redevel6pifient'.Plan =tself s i basically -a -legal document which, after adopted,
,
will-be recorded in the Rec6fdek''s Office arid, will _be_part of the Land -RecQrds.
related to the- Project, Area. As a legal document it :has three basic functions.
The fit6t'ls the ddlegatidn-of power- by_bhe,CIty.. Council which- adopts the Plan to
the Commission-. to carry out the Plan Und.er., Redevelopment Ageficies'-have
varied powers to carry out and. deal- with.,"condit ions in the Project Area-, inching
I r
i
REUhEW 0 undertaking :public works] -land •f , g them i - Ahe •Froj�ec f
t: r
Aea.
REDEUEL'OPMENT, M r . . . •'.Coomes�� stated ,there ; is :a ,need • for •flexibility iii ' th'is; docu
' AN CON_ !D' =•..:, . ,went because conditions • will, change n.•th'e Project Area:, �oppor -'
t:unit °;es „f pr investments will'' occur which, cannot be
t would require constant
P
and if. the -P,lan is too rXigd, i
r n is , too ,specific; the .Commi.ssion•'woul -&- run 'the. risk of
nyeis'encondemnationPel
aims aganst:.,the ,Pawn., Mr ; Coomes •stated .the ,second basic
function' :oaf z•the:.Redevelopment, Plan,,is ,that '"o`f ra land -,u's,e document. A Plan ; is
necessary .o correct the deficiencies in the Pr jiect;, but there has; to be •some
Plan is the need•'for,.,a financing and the::method of firiancing fo ,of ,the.
assurance .athese "deflcienc es will no reo.ccur. p ary ,, -
mechanism, cing for redev
elopment is by -tax increment This.,;makes °.funds available -o the Commission for..
public •financing in the ' °:by using -those increasedtaxes which' occur under
p p .that Ip 1 create the,new.taxes, stimulates
trivateninvestmentnt -�'to the Plan If: t � h ent l wil� e -
is a workable
s which •ar
.. r m �t_ g y, ! do,cument:;
allocated Tto the-Agency, 'The ; P an _s a •chaste ' he A enc a land use
and an implementation of .a development program:'for :an •ar:ea .I' is 'not. a planning
document as -you` :migh;t .see •n a (Generate. Plan , or. planning .studi. that%have been made.:
'These activ will be >done' i`
- an being - finplement:ed; but
n conjunction with the Pl
not part-of the ?Plan.. If the 'Redevelopment P1 -an is•adopted, then the Agency could
g into s provide the powers and •pro.
e •area The Phan i.s etc
wisoris fo:r the' .Prof ecttArea', the
to lay ou•t a, ;gener :p'lan, scheme of 'what all the
projects will ;be..
Gray sl review of the Redeveor• noteano :ecoriomdcobeeo.rtvshou]?lannn Commis-
er
Aft :Mr ` "' p. S J i &
ine�'ease ld be' made in
w hether p
orderr to
Head ne f '`' .._r n,_s' ales• tax x4oul•d ,the :tax ,increment ;
y � 'Mr.. ;Gra ndlca�ted iTf redevelo,pment` occurs pr;o;perly, then the tax coffers
would °':be increased .'by the increased:.assessed. evaluation Hof the; ,property „ increased
sales tax;; and increased gasoline . 'taxes,.; . !Chairman :Putnam asked, , Mr,., Qoomes -to: respond
to ,the tax - increment :fi:nancing, and' Mr. •Coome!s stated if `.t•he,,,p.rmar,y source of:
funding is; tax' nc nancng; the ^;only way it; can: ,be .used- .is to borrow money,
i
to, be, repaid from theetax ,increment:. it. 'is =his experience from prior :pro, ects t-bat,
headers ap,p'ly more +s,tringent tests �t public .agencies than private: bus'zriesses, for;
the repayment of: -the loans . .Tax increment° financing works as al check on the Proj, "ect .
•n Tthe Pro�!ect �R "epor�t�C -and the -EhR' do al economic analysis; conta
e thePlan
Mr. Gray advised the ssion there 'will'be a genes
ro. eets., 'each pro'; ect wil'h dev:el'op. its own..a'mpleme'nting, not +nc 'alboum" �ndioidual
sinc
J p J "g' hrou h assessment d's't_r,ictf i�nancing ,•.: s,om "e through
p ,
tax increment .f�i'nanc'n some �f" g �s, and °some •may be ,,done
thro,u h ttse res` -.p g
g• p eat or future' arkin dis.t'ricfs
made aug'gest on " ara be added that these . el-ements reflect- the general
p y en reviewed the conce t of ;the PIl'an ,,, -and :Mr.:.Coomes
P g' . P �' P g i p
concepa aa not fix or ' "limit ' 'location Hof s 'ecif c buihdi.n s: im rovements
-
'�or land +us- es - be •carried out' by'the° ^Phan. He ,§ the :ahould, in all
respects, 'fiave some od�egree ,tof flexi =bility: "
Chairman P;utnam'then''aske'd that a reaff rmation'of ':the Aefini�tion of "blight'' ", used
in :redevelopment Abe ' If' ed ' "for the ,public .and :also t fact the,..demol'ition of
intend,edito p
demo'lish pieces or blocks of .ty.within�the•Core A ney
ent re ex lamed so the ublic' di•d not feel the A
a cod s stem She stres sed
relations in order to keep 'the : public informed and have
of he t• City Sh stres it -was im
g P o Y tt,.;being. discussed.
order to clarif all ma ers'
'IMPsLEMENTAT.1Q:N - sir THE PLAN
a
Mt3i Goa Mien r.e im 1'emen'tati'on of the Plan ssedh -. aCo_omeseW. w as the ,
y; •
-- most .im or -tint artWO e Pflan,.� Pp galu_ma Communt: Develol m ailable,
P P 3 __
e t
q p y of both.,the et Y as
t f the: m s eat ,„ .
�
in mb °ers . One: s
o answer uestions ose& b. me. ers
- ssion.. e ,,'One.* ' uch ,uestion ;.was '
�Commx'ssion' :and. the .Planni.ng Commi "' , q ton the •,
q property where 6 Plan Ates.'the Commission- is .authorized to
ac
acq xire structures without a`c;guiring p se :structures,. are ,
ui�sititon Hof t 'e
`locat;ed: Mr.: Coomes °i:ndicated, -this - would allow the wAgency h to relocate, where,
necessary, ;or reh abilitate a's.tructure which 'has some historical- designa'ti:on,. ..
,. 'It. could lend a' s•sist�ance to ;tfie property owner who not. be financially able.
to' demolish the :structure,, thus, giving the Agency this: power, but possession of y
- _
I'
I
•
REVIEW OF the land would be re ed by the property owner A discuss
LO
REDEVEPMENT ensued - on port and o' the,��implementation re n art*''
g. _ g_ p.
PLAN . CONT' D pation by . owners and,: tenants . in .the :redevelopment p.roj ects. 'by
extending' reasonab "le:' preferences • t o, persons engaged' 'iit* businesses.
iii •the Area t'o reenter; in- ,business within Project
Area if' they meet the. requiremefits prescribed the.Pla_n.. Th'e question was 'raised,
whether or not this might' result - in some .',type of -lawsuit:. Mr. Coomes responded ,by n
explaining' before ptiblic•hear;ings are held 'and 'action, is taken on the Plan, rules
and regulations will.° have to' be •adopted for`. - owner = participation �arid .owner reentry .
of busirfesses in the, Project Area. "Reasonable preferences would.be the
Council determines. - `Mr: Coome& indicated property owners are. to, have ;pteferentizil,:
`standing in participating "in. the im p lementation' "of the -Plan Mr.,' Gray. asked "Mr:' ..
Coomes: to* e_y,plaifi, the' two typical types' of - agreement to be entered -in to with" the.:
property owners,. Mr Coomes' ated'there will,, °be "persons who want.to develop in..
the Project' Area - with the Agency "s cooperation and want an agreement to tie- ,those -,
mutual obligatin "s o together. The, other instance would be where property owners want
to develop propert and acquire other property to' expand and enter into an ,agreement
Mr. Coomes also stated there.might.b.e a third situation; where property agreements,
would not 'be needed - at a;1d1_• because the properties -are conforming under the Redevelop-
ment Plan.
Under Section 'D of, the implementation relating to relocation ,
Director Frank 'Gray advised the Commi'ss:ion the language in `this; section is mandated
by the State,, and there, Is much flexibility available to the, Commission In pro-
vid'ing,- relocation assistance. Some questions were raised concerning.tYe fact the
Community 'Development .Commission :s!hall seek to • prov,ide comparable alternate, loc.a-
tions -for '.business concerns and .eiatities which are to be relocated. Mrs. Coomes
stated relocation - rules will tie adopted, . and, as pr-:oper'ty is ,bacq � Stated., they will
Y
be enforced. Most of. the relocation assistance: is mand' o -•
cation' expenses far .homeowners and' businesses ,shall_ ,be- paid.:,. 'ReI ' cat-ion cannot be
done `unless .,satisfactory''housing for residential or :comparable sites for bus nesse.s
can be ac'quired.. • Under' .the- new: Eminent Domain Law ;, businesses will be provided
compensat -'on f good will: Mr. 'Gray indicated .'he. felt, it was important.to'point
out that' `some of, the limits writteii',in this section wil_2 never be reached .as the
Comm ssioh� goes' through the project&," but- • °t; is necessary to : establish those limits.
Under Section"E,.`'Other.Actions. As Appropriate,, '" General Counsel Matthew Hudson
asked if, as property .ac`gpired by the Commission is,•sold.bac_k to the tenant, .could
ac`latis'e be put into the agreement "A covenant to.= maintain.," • Mr.. Coomes responded.
it is being done -.at the present time, p rtictillarly ,if it, is .a special benefit being'
conferred by the Agency. Mr. Coomes• also .stated. as ,property Is - being; .sold by the..
Commission a 15 -day Notice of Pub,l Hearing•is.requir.ed,. Public bidding is not
necessaryy,; however, sales: <can be dgne by, negotiation but have to, be.. done In the.
open. •Mr Gray° stated the property being zsold • need . not, be, sold • to the highest
bidder'. ''The; Commission would have the - discretion -of Gelling. the land to the
prospective owner on the:merits of the intended, °use. Commissioner Hilligoss asked
ff it would be nec'es'sary to have a 2/3 vote on the sale of property,, and -Mr. ,Gray
responded it would be, done through Eminent, Domain. Planning - Commissioner Horci'za
asked how the Commission_wou.l:d. reach. -a decision ,on the value: of the property., Mr:.
Coomes r`espond'ed.by stating, in dealing with, the acquisition of p.r.opptty, .the
Commission would have: two appraisals made. The Commission will be able t6 bring
in technical assistance if it is required:
Commis.s
ioiier Head questioned whether it would',not be advisable to' advertise `land
which' was available in the.Red_evelopment Area:, stating it 'would not. b`e necessary
to ,attach .a. sale price to the • land 'but t- hat the Commission _would entertain. propo.-
salsa. Deputy Director Frank Gray advised the Commission would have the opportunity'
to advert"s'e'' in' trade publications,. Chairman Putnam. stated she felt Commissioner
Head' = -s- point -was _ a -valid- one_ and .._the_ -Commiss,,on_as —well_ as others:' need's to know: the
steps to follow in'• order to • ha' ve a-- 'proper.; format on the validity. of procedures. Mr.
Gray .sta the sale Hof' land in the area- would, still be. subject -to the conditions .
o'f . 'the :Zoning; Ord'= :inance :of. :the City, - use permits,, and:, other, normal procedures ,, so
that they 'are mot- excluded from these types- o,f:..regulations.,
Some discussion was •'held' on, the "zoning;-which. would: apply to the Project Area, ,and,
Mr. Gray 'stated` all new construction -would have "to comply with_ state, and local'--laws
x _ ' REVIEW OF D _ in effect i eluding the - Zoning Ordinance: Mr". Coomes sttated
' oPconf'
P MENT after the is adopted, the Zoning Or dinance sho. be
CONT D amended t orm with the Plan Director R
Executive.obert
REDEVEL
-r build s buildin her to maJ
o ed whet tons, change a buildin ld it be he cessary
Meyer question e a tera
nt to o
through sign review at rou h sit° g n the Pro 'ect Area woo
for ,the. applica' e„ de , the P1'annin 'C ommission, level
g'
, .. g g , evelop' .,, .. ,Commission-.' Mr.: Coomest�sta
x , it D' ` ment y
mostecities .''to the Pl ; von Mr Gr ted
y
P, y arming
ommssion�. e
y P g y to eithgr the ,Planning
e e ate t e aut orlhe
c or could
Commission or the Communt w Develo ,ment Comm1SithT
n theRe l
deveo Mr'.
the rue in sma er c ti f onformi�t w
natio,n' c, , y ., - P
Gray „further stated the Plan recommends that, a sutivel�D'iresign element be esta
make the nitia etermi ,
bushed fo the Central Business District. Exec or Rob'er't' Meyer" raised
the ,question whether' it'd would" 'be„ ' y ' app,lication -for
- recessar for businesses to - make
a a l c l
or .;officesacewithin -, inratiThe business may o change
g„
' d y Mr Coomes
b -
he,lan ua e g iori. maS l ado t T A NDARD p rocedures r- e any e'Commission
withgthe _,i g under
cooperation, : chap e t g p view °
and Mr. Gray to
new construction or' developmentn Comm GommiSl�ir „ Gray further stated the review- �p- rimar -ily
appl -ies to the :exteriors of the bu
METHODS, OF FINANCING
In response to Commissioner Harbersom quest=ion whether or , not the Federal :Govern-
menu should be, �o ec Area will g' Y P d °`by stating
P P.
the Pr s a not de end u o Mr. Gra funds o i.tewas felt to be
P,i J [ fundin
included a'
' source' of
although, n Federal
ady y p p r J �th P y J Pardidzng
l
Federalf 'undsl available e c
forcommun t P develocment o ro'ects�such l as t the'wheelchdir
LING General Statement. o weyer paragraph
2 p y y g ra su ested some changes ..,Ho,'f,he
ramps, recently funded b a HUD rantY. Mr. G y gg
Sp! recommended the
on the second page of the METHODS! OF ZINAN
P g paragraph. be deleted. in its entirety.
S ecal Mr: Coomes, recommend
The Ex then asked Mr Coomes `to explain how the Project would be
find under,the,'tax i le - property i ncrement allocations Mr ; . - Coomes the--taxes levied
sta ted
each year on the taxabn the' Project Area' shall be allocated to 'the
cans„ or` oth etes t r indebtedness incur ;re&by
Commission to pay the interest on bonds, 1 e
y two d ''o keep in:mindawlieh
e n There are
would det rmin ei e when thetta taxes ad the othe nr when` they would be
the ommu ssed value established in .the Project. Area determines whichZ: taxes
g g g �y o t
e e asse
taxin a c and which go 'to :the, Commission': The assessment rol `1 to
paid" ..
en y ono o me the P1. The last
be used is determined , a p f the' Redevel 'o
o to t
equalize o b the ,.'d f, the adopt lan tes the
n Dent an.constitu
base, fort the Pro ect If the ,Plan is a u ust. 20 1.976;'
d assessment roll on the date o
'� j ' ' dopted on or before A g ; ,, the'
assessment roll in effec ; t - ,for the 1975 -76 fiscal ' year would be tfie base roll for
J y •,. - t to the A
ect and an. increase,, in the assesse a j.gt Area as of
the Pro
• - d value in,
March 1976 would result in the tax 'base bein allocate enc This base.
would be for the life o,f the Projec If the August 20;, 1976, target date is not
attained;, .. fis - u
fined,, then the next ,year „base roll (76-77 'eal year be allocated to
receivin funds as 'of July 1 "'stated the increment ld, begin
g• gy� - P �Mr e Coomes furth'er�s c i
f 977 the Agency woos pay- '
the A enc I-
g y
' P re January 1
If' the: Plan, is adopt
y bonds are° sued
• been incurred '
• 977 finances.: b 'the Cit
,a f
,y not is,
an ion only if a debt has be
z. ab, a e the C t Cr.ece ves„ t ax increment to ;repay :f „y, .rt will. be°
necessar todvance additional funds, thus creating.a continual debt between.
0
y nd..the City'
the Agency a ,
Ex ione, o h ed he t h e t i y waa - ay s g °ing
t
' o have to finance
Age y' q y d whether the Cit wa °s alwa s o
the A enc and Mr., Gra res' y g - `p unt 'the
ecutive Director uest
L. g P... ues_ to do,
so u
e y g g y y omes relied in -1i r- mat
e d�
time,, the Agency issues bonds Mt,..'. Me er then q the bonds c ool T,
o ral Counse ked if "the _
sed for o eratin the A enc and Mr. Co
N. sources,; and Mr Coomes indicated at could borrow from devel``oper.s -and from
Gene 1 Ma' ” other,
H lenders
who issue bond`s Plannin Commissioner Glenn, Head then asked if the Agency could
`ego a p . g 'ti.ate them uritri'1 Ple: oney'was available.
Mr. Coomes this could donel the is ddopted, a certain
momentum is created, and felt the wo” e
t
rstVthing you could do would be to have out h
- .r P1-an adop - =not- =pr,oceed ,with it ._ De ut Director . Frank' Gray also pointed, '
�P Y
' Pra. t an e i wo t �d
REVIEW OF tax increment financing i� not the only method of financing
REDEVELOPMENT.. the j ect. He stated , be possible to borrow „money
P,-LAN CONT''D, against supposition tax increment funds would be':available
to the City.., The creation of. .a new parking district, could also
be used,t;o finance certain portions of the district, and the
City'tself could: through some of its capital improvement °proj'ects, finance
additional improvements, in the area. In,rela Mr, Head's question whether
or. not the; money could be saved :until a sufficient amount was.;accumuiated to com-
.
plete a project, Mr. Meyer .:stated, 'it was his understanding,,. 'fr.om a p'r`ior' meeting”
with, Mr. Coomes,, if there., is ;a ,project in pr.ogres's' using, ih'e money, the funds
are not forthcoming to.•the.Agency`.. Mr. Coomes stated many agencies which - have not
yet. issued:b - onds have entered into agreements, with cities.., "Commissioner. Hilligoss
questioned whether or, not the loan from. the', city 'to the. agency 'is -.an interest -free
loan or :could interest be cha ged. on tie loan. Mr. Coomes: 'r,:esponded by saying
most cities .charge interest.
Mr,. Gray then ' stated not all, of the projects the.•Communty Development Commission
will beAping are ,public 1mprovement projects. The Commission' -will be working,
in cooperation with private enterprise,, and in this way, will'be. gettirig'the"
, stimulation of private development: where, it `has not, occurred in `the past This`
is one of` the best' definitions of "blight:" Mr, - Coomes sta'ted•'the fi'rst` repayment
on th loan made by the City to the ,Agency under' ther•'contr.actual ag"r-eement, would
be the difference between the 1977 -78 ass'es'sment-roll and the,cur base roll.
Mr. Gray' stated, historically on '.projects of -! this type. tlirougfiout - Stare, -the`'
actual. time for .;repaying .the ,indebtedness is seven years. Commis-
sioner Harberson suggested that since the City would not get the tax increment until
January 1478, °could • the. Agency borrow against the ncr'emen use' the money - to
purchase land,, - resell it., Mr;. Gray. _ind;icated this is one , source -' f° revenue
.the Agency would.�ha�e.
FINAL• ACTIONS •BY THE - CITY.
Deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed the General Statement 'of'actibns to'be taken
by the City, and Mr., Meyer asked the question..whether the actions as outlined
would take priority over other proj'ec'ts in the City'. Mr. ,Coomes - responded by ;
stating this was, only' a ,general statement. of cooperation by. 'the ;City to carry `out
the Plan,. It. is a statement ,of the things the: City will do f'feasib e and capable
of carrying out. Some- discuss16n was :held on Ttem 4. under the General Statement
in this Section 5 of the Plan iregarding the enforcement f;o,r 'continued' main tenance
by owners,. Mr. Coomes .suggested ;the words, " and, provide for`" enforcement ..o be
remgved from' the p'aragxaph and. h'ave`th'e statement merelg say "-the. City and't'he
Community Development Commission shall develop _a program for continued maintenance
by owners of:al -1 real property, both public and''private, within 'the Proje(ft- Area
'throughout the duration of the Plan,. This section is contained in the`.General
Statementf in order to insure the area-. doe's not return to what-.is termed a "blighted"
condition. The remaining sections of the Plan were merely, reViewed by•Mr. - Gray,
and. there were no °further comments.
REVIEW Chairman.Putnam Deputy Director' Frank- ,G'ray because d,f:
OZ -- IR_ the length of the first_ document The Redevelopment
would -it be. necessary for the, Commission to review 'the EIR
at this time. ,Mr. Gray stated the EIR is a key document and
must be-circulated by April, 19,,., 7 6. It would, be sent to 'various agencies and- departments for their.- comments..t'o be incorporated. - in the' final 'draft plan of the
document' He asked the Commissioners to thoroughly' review the d'o:cumen:t for
consideration on April 19. Planning Commissioner Horc za asked what the' `Planri ng
:) Commis.siom 'jsj functions _would, be Twith regard to the EIR, and s ; Mr. < :Gray responded
orbot,h • AthecElR; and, the Redevelopment .,Plan would A be 1 fo�rwa -rded Ito the Plannin�g` s-
siorn for�:the r rev ewe, they, iw,ill, ,comments on both documents:, and ; the h Redevelop'
went Plan, the P ng. Commission �s, Comm
,The .Environmental,Impact ,Report f ' the do
sion which will, b,e.,p ferred to the Planning Co x
summary, ..,the,-,Planning i.
lanning .Comms.s on ; would make "th
to the City.-Council and, their comments.on the
Commission. Mr. Coomes : fur.ther ,advis,ed the P1
its, will be`torward"ed the "I,ouncil.
61 the 'Community Development`Cgmmis-
nission'sand the City Council. In '
r_ comments on 'the Redevelopment Plan
ER the Community Devel`opmgn,e'
J
zn ng Commission .would` 'be'' charged'
J
J f