Loading...
1992/11/10 Community Development Agency Minutes COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK MINUTES November 10, 1992 The Members of the Community Development Agency of the City of Rohnert Park met this date during the City Council meeting at approximately 6:52 p.m. in the City Offices, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, Rohnert Park, with Chairperson Spiro presiding. Call to Order Chairperson Spiro called the meeting of the Community Development Agency of the City of Rohnert Park to order at approximately 6:52 p.m. Roll Call Present: (5) Agency Mkembers Eck, Hollingsworth, Hopkins, Reilly, and Chairperson Spiro Absent: (0) None Staff present for all or part of the meeting: Executive Director/City Manager Netter, City Attorney Flitner, Assistant to the City Manager Leivo, Planning Director Skanchy, and Finance Director Harrow. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Agency Mlember Hopkins, seconded by Agency Member Hollingsworth, the minutes of October 27, 1992 were unanimously approved as submitted. Approval of Bills Upon motion by Agency Member Hollingsworth, seconded by Agency Member Hopkins , the bills presented per attached list in the amount of $28 , 786 . 78 were unanimously approved. Acknowledging The Executive Director/Secretary's report on the posting Exe.Dir./Sec.Report of the agenda was acknowledged. Unscheduled Public Chairperson Spiro stated that in compliance with State Appearances Law, (The Brown Act) , anyone in the audience who wished to make a comment may do so at this time. No one responded. Project Funding Priorities: 1) Executive Director/City MSanager Netter stated that staff was directed to research on what a steel building would cost and he put together a summary of possible reserve funds that are available and if the funds can be allocated for this project or what would be the cost if the site was moved. Mr. Netter indicated that staff has looked at an alternate site and referred to maps on display and stated that electrical and gas services costs would be minimal at the alternate site. Mr. Netter provided the Agency Members with a letter from the architect answering some questions the Council had (a copy is attached to the original set of these minutes) and stated that a member of the architectural firm was present if the Council had specific questions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY OF ROHNERT PARK MINUTES f2) November 10, 1992 Executive Director/City Manager Netter indicated that by converting the project to a steel building would save about $100,000 but the maintenance costs would increase by 50% according to the architect's estimate. Mr. Netter recommended not going to the steel building option as it did not seem cost effective comparing to the increased maintenance costs. Executive Director/City Manager Netter also referred to Reserve Funds Summary and discussed with Council the legally restrictive funds which are collected for a specific purpose and once the fee is collected, it may not be allocated for another purpose although there is no provision that the funds cannot be borrowed but have to be paid back and used for the purpose it was collected. Mr. Netter also went over the Council 's Reserve Accounts which funds can be accessed for capital projects with approval by the City Council or could also be accessed by loan funds to be paid back. Agency Member Hollingsworth inquired about the Reserve for Development of Additional Recreational Facilities , which he initiated, if the funds can be taken from the account since it has been averaging $130,000 and asked if it would end up with $425,000 in March at the end of its fiscal year. Finance Director Harrow replied that Agency Members decided when the budget was adopted that funds were not to be deposited to this account this year. Agency Member Eck asked if the architectural fee of $100,000 has been paid to which Executive Director/City Manager Netter replied in the affirmative. Executive Director/City Manager Netter stated that it was staff's recomrendation to phase the project as shown on the board and previously discussed (amount $800,000) with the addition of some administrative area (amount $25,000) . Chairperson Spiro asked if annexation fee is discretionary and the response was yes. Agency Member Eck stated we can get a facility that is workable, in the scaled down model for $825,000, have a functional building that will meet the needs far better than we have now, keep some funds in CDA reserves and get the project going even though nobody will get everything what they want. Chairperson Spiro stated we should do the Animal Shelter as originally designed and we should also do the overpass and just figure out where we are going to get the money so we can do both. Agency Member Hopkins stated he knows what the financial situation is and unless as a City we are ready to generate funds through annexation and if the Council refuses to do any annexation until 1995, we cannot afford to do any new capital improvements in this community because the money is not going to be there and we have no idea that is going to happen to us. He knows that the State is going to hit us again but no Animal Shelter is as important as our employees' jobs. He would like to go for all the projects but COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY OF ROHNERT PARK MINUTES (3) November 10, 1992 employees' jobs. He would like to go for all the projects but there are those who are not willing to pay the price which is that this City has to continue to develop, to continue to bring money in or we have to stop. The citizens cannot have both - you cannot spend the money and refuse to give the Council the money to spend. We can generate more money by approving annexation in the next 2 years and not wait until 1995 because if we do nothing, we run a real risk of not balancing the budget. Agency Member Hollingsworth asked Agency Member Eck to discuss his proposal to hear what his ideas are. Agency Member Eck stated what we have is a chance to spend about $800,000 and leave a reserve of about $400,000 in CDA. We do not even know if we are going to have a hit since there are new members in the Assembly. At some point we have to decide one way or the other. Priorities were set and clearly spelled out in the redevelopment plan and to say that if we spend for the Animal Shelter we cannot spend for the freeway overpass or interchange does not make sense. We have enough money. The question is how much reserve we are going to leave in the account. We can do this project and get a good workable project and leave a good reserve in CDA and he would propose to go out and start on the project. Chairperson Spiro stated he agreed with Agency Member Eck 's statement but when the funding was planned, that was before the State made the hit. We need to look where we can get additional funds and agreed with Agency Member Hopkins ' statement about getting additional funds through annexation. Chairperson Spiro opened the meeting for public comment at approximately 7:26 p.m. Al Haggerty, 167 Fescue Way, commented on the proposed site and the alternate site. Mr. Haggerty stated that if the proposed site has title problems, then the City should consider the alternate site. Chairperson Spiro stated there may be some developments between now and two weeks from now concerning the proposed site. Mr. Haggerty stated that he sees no reason why, before the State hit, the Animal Shelter was #1 priority, it should change after the hit. carol Haggerty, 167 Fescue Way, asked how come $1 million can be put for the overpass and now we cannot afford $1 million for the Animal Shelter. She urged the Council to build the Animal Shelter at this time. They have been through enough and the present shelter is an absolute disgrace. Waltman, 909 Dorine Avenue, stated she has a dog who stays at the shelter because he cannot find his way home. She was in the shelter today and it is a disgrace for this town to have this kind of a shelter. This project should be bipartisan and she would like to see all Councilmembers work hard to get this shelter. We need it - and her dog needs it. COM4I'JITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY OF ROHNERT PARK MINUTES (4) November 10, 1992 Kathy Hinkle, 542 Lorraine Court, stated she is the shelter's veterinarian and any changes made should not only be considered from financial aspect but also from medical implications. She told the Council that staff has waited long enough and this facility is needed and the community wants it and there are implications to human health standards - rabies quarantine is a human health problem that you need to be aware of. These are not just animal issues. Katherine Collins, 828 Lilac Way, addressed Agency Member Hopkins that she was going to beat him in saying that if she did not like it here, move out, to forget it because she has been here 20 years and does not intend to move out. She stated she takes offense in that expenditures were not taken into consideration when the Performing Arts Center and the Wine Center were built. Roger Southfield, 5338 Daniel Drive, stated he is for the animal shelter and there are a lot of animal shelter supporters present in the chambers but the Council should remember that the City has a population of 38,260 and if the issue of animal shelter or Expressway were put on the ballot, he was willing to wager a bet that the people would want the overpass before the animal shelter. He asked the Council to represent the majority of the people of Rohnert Park and not only the people who are in the chambers for the animal shelter. Mary Stewart, 579 Marine Court, stated that the current international economic crisis that we are in, according to several well known economists, started about 10 years ago when people started using credit cards to buy things that they could not afford to pay tomorrow and end up paying in the long run. Everybody knows that that is a very poor way of handling finances. You cannot spend tomorrow's money today and not wonder what is going to happen when tomorrow comes. It is her understanding that annexation fees are actually fees charged because annexations cost the City money to expand services to serve the new area. Otherwise, you are doing a pyramid scheme. We cannot use annexation fees to pay for things that we cannot afford right now. We have to pull in our belts right now. We have to use what money we have the best way we can. Holly Blue, 1312 Gold Way, wished to respond to Mr. Southfield who thinks that animal shelter supporters are a minority of people. Most people in this town have pets. She hates to use these projects one against another because they do not have anything to do with each other. The Animal Shelter is part of public safety, what we pay taxes for - like public safety and fire safety. It is a public service and she hoped that the Council would vote and rove forward on this project tonight. This has been going on a lot longer than 2 years. There being no one else wishing to speak, chairman Spiro closed the public comment period. Executive Director/City Manager Netter reported to the Agency that COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY OF ROHNERT PARK MINUTES (5) November 10, 1992 Executive Director/City Manager Netter reported to the Agency that Finance Director Harrow was in Sacramento today and the legislators and League staff commented on the state of the economy. They reported that State revenues are still in a disiral state and everyone is looking at more hits on local governments next year. If we do the animal shelter, we need to phase it down, we have to think what its impact to the City in the future will be. Agency Member Hollingsworth made the motion to approve a scaled down model of the animal shelter (approximately $825,000 including an administrative area) at whichever site to be determined and to reevaluate additional phases next year when we know what the State is going to do to local governments. Said motion was seconded by Agency Member Reilly who stated that FAIRS should be allowed to raise funds for the project. The motion was unanimously approved. Executive Director/City Manager Netter stated staff will work with the Contractor and amend the resolution to add some wording because of the phased down model . 120 Alicia Drive - Executive Director/City Manager Netter referred to his Council Meeting Memo dated November 6, 1992 for explanation. Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF No. 92-11 ROHNERT PARK AUTHORIZING A PROMISSORY NOTE WITH BURBANK HOUSING DEVELOPNETTT CORPORATION OR SUCCESSOR AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE NOTE Upon motion of Agency Member Hopkins, seconded by Agency Member Reilly, reading of said resolution was waived and unanimously adopted. Unscheduled Public Chairperson Spiro asked if anyone in the audience wished to make Appearances an appearance at this time. No one responded. Adjournment There being no further business, Chairperson Spiro adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:44 p.m. puty Secretary Chairperson