HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-26MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
June 26, 1975
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
was called to order at 8:35 P.M., June 26, 1975, by Chairman
Henry B. Clark.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Chuck Aston
Jean Benson
Noel Brush
Jim McPherson
Chairman Henry B. Clark
Others Present:
Harvey L. Hurlburt, Executive Director
Dave Erwin, City Attorney
Paul Williams, Director/Environmental Services
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. CORRESPONDENCE COMMENTING ON EIR & REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1
Paul Williams advised that four additional letters had
been received commenting on the EIR and the Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area No. 1 - Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, two letters
dated June 6, and July 12; California Department of Transportation;
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. He
then explained their concerns and the City's response to those
concerns.
JACK MOOREHEAD, 45-555 SAN PASQUAL, requested clarific-
ation from Council regarding the reference in the EIR to the proposed
development of blight areas. Mr. Moorehead stated that he did not
feel that any area in Palm Desert could be considered.a "blight"
area. He also requested clarification as to where the $54,000 a year
that would be lost to the City would come from in the first place.
Mayor Clark advised that the word "blight" in this sense is a legal
term and in the case of Palm Desert refers to drainage problems,
traffic problems, parking problems, etc.
In answer to Mr. Moorehead's second question, Mayor
Clark advised that the figure in question was actually $57,000.
These monies would come to the City from buildings such as the
Food King and Pomona First Federal Savings. When the property taxes
were assessed on these buildings, they were in first stages of con-
struction and taxes were assessed at the property value, a much
lower figure than what they are now worth in their completed state.
If the General Plan is approved, the tax base will be frozen as of
March, 1974, and the City will receive the $57,000 per year for the
life of the Redevelopment Agency Program, plus the tax base increment
will increase each year thereafter for the life of the Agency.
DUNCAN REYNOLDS, 47-047 GOLETA, asked Council whether
or not the City had to have a Redevelopment Agency.
Chairman Clark advised that it was not mandatory.
However, Council and staff found that there were problems within
the City that needed correcting, and decided that a good way to
correct these problems was with the establishment of a Redevelopment
Agency under California State Law, giving the City the right to tax
increment financing. Councilman Brush added that these problems
(drainage, traffic, and parking), have been complained about by
residents for a long time.
June 26, 1975 Page 1
Mr. Moorehead then discussed the Redevelopment Agency
within the City of Costa Mesa where the City was allowed to buy
land and sell it back to developers. Further discussion found that
Mr. Moorehead was confused in that the project in Costa Mesa was
federally funded. Mr. Hurlburt pointed this fact out, and stressed
ghat the City of Palm Desert's Redevelopment Agency has nothing to
do with federally funded projects. The only similarity between the
two cities is in the name of the agency.
Councilman Brush stated that as long as he was on the
City Council, no federally funded projects of this nature would be
allowed.
Councilman McPherson pointed out that one of the nice
things about the tax increment financing of Redevelopment Agency pro-
jects is that it can be done without cost to homeowners.
ROBERT JOEHNCK, Attorney for the Redevelopment Agency,
confirmed Councilman Brush's statement that the Agency would still
exist if the General Plan is defeated, but advised that a totally
new Redevelopment Plan would have to be completed.
MRS. DAVID BOND readdressed Council, stating that she
did not feel $57,000 would do much for the City, and asked how the
City would get the rest of the money needed for the projects.
Chairman Clark advised that it was not the total responsibility of
the City, using the example of the water district taking care of
flood control. He then reiterated regarding funds received for the
life of the Agency.
HARRY HARDY, 45-597 SAN PASQUAL, pointed out to
Council that the $57,000 figure was the only figure the public was
aware of. Councilman McPherson advised Mr. Hardy that the City is
not sure of future figures, but the $57,000 is definite.
During discussion, the question was raised as to how
long the City would have to approve the Redevelopment Plan. Chairman
Clark advised that the County has assured the City that they can
inform the City by July 10, as to the vote count. If there is a
50% Yes vote, the City can form the Redevelopment Agency on July 10,
and condu t a second ordinance hearing by August 15. The Redevelop-
ment Agency will remain in effect, and the March 1974 tax base will
be frozen.
Mr. Hardy stated that in the event the present General
Plan is defeated, the tax increment is not dead and the City would
be eligible for these funds once a new plan is approved. Chairman
Clark advised that the $57,0 0 would be lost forever, and the City
could not start the Redevelopment Project for a year, at a time
when a new plan is approved, should the City lose the election. The
City must have a General Plan by July 10, in order to receive the
funds.
Mr. Hurlburt advised that the Program must be filed
by August 19.
Paul Williams advised that should the City lose the
election, it will take a year to develop a new and substantially
different plan. The Referendum Committee is asking for minor
changes, but they are not substantial, so could not be approved.
Mr. Hardy asked Council if the General Plan must be
reviewed once a year, if it could be revised, and how long it would
take. Paul Williams advised that it would require two public hear-
ings and publication. Mr. Hardy then asked why an extension of
time would not be possible, and Mr. Hurlburt advised him that it
would require the County Assessor to change the County -wide date
for closing of the tax rolls and this cannot be done.
Mayor Clark declared the public hearing closed.
June 26, 1975 Page 2
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Member McPherson moved and Member Brush seconded to
adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting; carried unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
•
CAKIL-
HENRY airman
ATTEST:
HARxecu ive Director
June 26, 1975 Page 3