The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Minutes 120898Approved as submitted DATE: 01/12/99 MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998 (immediately following City Council Regular Session) Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 10:10 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Board Members Arrambide, Clay, Lerno, Luna and Chairman Johnson Absent: None Others Present: Marcia McClure Torgerson, Secretary Staff Present: City Manager Wade McKinney, Police Chief Dennis Hegwood, Fire Chief Mike McCain, Administrative Services Director Rachelle Rickard, Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana, Assistant City Engineer John Neil and City Attorney Roy Hanley. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: By Council Member Luna and seconded by Council Member Clay to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5:0 by a roll -call vote. COMMUNITY FORUM: None. A. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Redevelopment Agency Minutes — November 24, 1998 — (City Clerk recommendation: Approve) [Marcia McClure Torgerson] Secretary Marcia McClure Torgerson asked that Item #A-1 be continued to the next meeting. There was Board consensus to continue Item #A-1. RDA 12/08/98 Page 1 of 3 Approved as submitted DATE: 01/12/99 B. MANAGEMENT REPORT: 1. Preliminary Redevelopment Plan — (Planning Commission recommendation: Agency Board adopt Resolution RA1998-004 approving the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan) [Paul Saldana] Community and Economic Development Director Paul Saldana gave the staff report explaining the Redevelopment process and answering questions of Council. Vice Chairman Arrambide asked that since at least three of the Board Members own homes within the project area, will there be a conflict? Mr. Saldana responded that personal residences are exempt but that he would look into it further. Council Member Clay commended Mr. Saldana for his efforts of informing the public on this process. Council Member Luna expressed his concerns of the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. Using the overhead projector, Council Member Luna referred to an excerpt from a Public Policy Research Institute study (see Attachment A) explaining that there will be a consorted effort to eliminate redevelopment agencies in the future. Therefore, Atascadero needs to get involved politically concerning redevelopment. Council Member Luna also stated that redevelopment is not new to Atascadero. We had a redevelopment agency in the 1980's. He said that In 1990, Atascadero issued the DeWeerd report (see Attachment B) which is the document that convinced him to support redevelopment in Atascadero. He also shared an excerpt from the Economic Round Table's 1992 Report (see Attachment C) which shows potential projects involving redevelopment funds. PUBLIC COMMENT Mike Murphy, 9320 Santa Clara Road, expressed his support for redevelopment. He also stated that Atascadero needs a light industrial area. Dorothy McNeil, 8765 Sierra Vista, asked that the Council urge staff to set forums on redevelopment when the public can easily attend. Chairman Johnson closed the Public Comment period. MOTION: By Board Member Clay and seconded by Board Member Lerno to adopt Resolution RA1998-004 approving the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. Motion passed 4:1 by a roll -call vote. (Luna opposed) RDA 12/08/98 Page 2 of 3 Approved as submitted DATE: 01/12/99 C. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Johnson adjourned the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 10:55 p.m. to the next Regular Session of the City Council scheduled for January 12, 1999. MEETING RECORDED AND MINUTES PREPARED BY: A" Marcia McClure Torgerson, Secreta ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Excerpt from a Public Policy Research Institute Study — Council Member George Luna Attachment B — Excerpt from the DeWeerd report — Council Member George Luna Attachment C — Excerpt from the Economic Round Table's 1992 Report — Council Member George Luna RDA 12/08/98 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT #A Atas. Redevelopment Agency �P�P*n�Qr 8, 1998 ontj'K;U: hAh nOzOibm Maw 9kdWQ `dddm; orra'sk M� Figure 5.4—Net Subsidies to RDAs in FY 1994-1995, by Project As seen in Figure 5.4, only four projects generated enough growth in assessed value to produce a surplus of tax increment revenues. In two4hirds of the projects, the financial transfers either way amount to less than $1 million annually. In the remaining 13 projects, the annual subsidies received from other jurisdictions exceeded $1 million for each project area, and in three of those project areas, the other taxing jurisdictions lost over $3 million in property taxes to the RDA. Summed across all 38 projects, the RDAs collectively accounted for 51 percent of the tax increment they received in FY 1994-1995. Figure 5.5 shows the. amount of tax increment generated and the amount received in the sample projects. These projects received a total of over $78 million in tax increment revenues (after pass-throughs), and generated just under $40 million of those revenues by their effect on the growth in assessed value. This implies total annual subsidies flowing from all the other taxing jurisdictions to these redevelopment projects of over $38 million. so 0 P P. -I d GNW*W oaid % aim {rrO4 Figure 5.5—RDAs Generated Half of the Tax Increment They Received 000006 16 a so 40 30 20 10 0 P P. -I d GNW*W oaid % aim {rrO4 Figure 5.5—RDAs Generated Half of the Tax Increment They Received 000006 From the De Weerd Report Atascadero is unusual in the respect that there are few definable ureas that one could . point to than typically show the need for: redevelopment The downtown area is an exception to that generalization. in the downtown there are ample signs of a need for redevelopment. The area on north El Camino Real also shows a need for redevelopment in the usual sense of the term. But in the main Atascadero does not have "sectors of blight" that many other cities suffer from. Overall, Atascadero is well maintained and as the Economic Research Associates report states, "a solid middle income city". To some extent that is a part of the problem. Atascadero is seen as a place that is economically healthy, if not dynamically so. That perception is not altogether true, however. There are definitely some areas of Atascadero that are not economically healthy. The existence of schools in the heart of the downtown is in my opinion a major problem. The traffic circulation problems; the lack of the proper utilization of this property and the lack of proper tax revenues from this property are examples of major blight. Essentially the same is true of the north El Camino Real area This is mainly from a poor lay -out of lots with the resultant lack of proper utilization of the land. While these areas cannot be described as blighted throughout, there is evidence of such conditions. More impomotly, the lack of proper utilization of the property in this area is a form of insidious blight. So, in the following report, you will find many references to this malady. Finally, the point needs to be made regarding the need for certain unblighted property to be included in the Project Area because it is essential to carrying out the purposes of Redevelopment in any meaningful way. One such example in the downtown area is the Creek That Creek could be one of the strongest assets to the downtown revitalization effort if properly utilized. Although not blighted in itself, the Creek is, nevertheless, vital to the long term value of the downtown and therefore should be included in a Redevelopment Project Area. GENERAL DESCRIP'T'ION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT AREAS All of the Downtown Area, including the Junior High School site. All of the Atascadero Creek area, including those properties that abut the Creek All of the property between the 000001% ATTACHMENT.: # �Atas 'Redevelopiiie December .8,'1998 From the Economic Round Table 1992 Report POTENTIAL PROJECTS INVOLVING REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS . I. Downtown Improvements $2-3 million 2. Renovation of the Williams Brothers Shopping Center $? 3. Redevelop the Traffic Way Industrial Area $? 4. North El Camino Real Public Improvements $1-2, million ✓ 5. Construction of Lewis Ave. Bridge (Vehicle $1 million) 6. HWY 101-41 Interchange $1-2 million ✓ 7. Stadium Park Acquisition and Development $1-2 million✓ 8. Community Center $2-3 Million 9. City Hall Renovations 3-5 Million 10. Relocate the Junior High School $10-15 million 11. Low. -Moderate Housing 20% of Tax Proceeds M