HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - May 28, 2008 SMLODI CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LODI
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Special Joint City Council meeting with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi of
May 28, 2008, was called to order by Mayor Mounce at 7:02 p.m.
Present: Council Members/Redevelopment Agency Members — Hansen, Johnson, Katzakian,
and Mayor/Chairperson Mounce
Absent: Council Members/Redevelopment Agency Members — Hitchcock
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B-1 Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on
file in the office of the City Clerk, Mayor Mounce called for the joint public hearing of the
City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi to consider a resolution
certifying the adequacy of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Lodi
Community Improvement Project; a resolution finding that the use of taxes allocated from
the Lodi Community Improvement Project for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate -income housing outside the
Project Area will be of benefit to the Project; and consideration by the City Council of the
introduction of an ordinance adopting the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi
Community Improvement Project. NOTE: Joint action of the Lodi City Council and
Redevelopment Agency.
City Manager King briefly introduced the subject matter of the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report for the Lodi Community Improvement Project and proposed Redevelopment
Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement Project.
City Attorney Schwabauer stated a conflict of interest analysis was completed pursuant to
the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations. He stated it
was determined that Council Member Hitchcock had a conflict that prevented her from
participating based on the ownership of real property in the proposed Project Area.
Mr. King provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Lodi Community Improvement
Project. Specific topics of discussion included the process of the public hearing,
recommendation, proposed Project Area, financial projections, reason for proposed project,
overview of provisions in proposed plan, funding source, public outreach efforts, addressing
community concerns, and the consultants participating in the same.
Ernie Glover of GRC Redevelopment Consultants provided an overview of the redevelopment
process. He specifically discussed qualifications of the firm, redevelopment process in
other communities, the non-use of eminent domain, blight designation and the related
process, compatible and incompatible uses for future uses of property, home values,
hazardous waste and clean-up efforts, crime statistics in the eastern portion of City, funding
source for services such as public safety, small business loans and lending options, and
possible tax increment application.
Don Frasier of Frasier and Associates provided an overview of tax increment projections. He
specifically discussed his firm's qualifications, receipt of greater share of future property tax
amounts, local application of future tax increment, payment of property taxes and
Proposition 13 application remaining the same, example of when a home is sold how future
property tax share is greater for the Redevelopment Agency, revenue projections of
approximately 4% per year based on 2% of property tax increase and 2% property
changeover, possible $600 million over next 40 years on present value, additional funding for
taxing authorities and school district, consultations with school district, Delta College, San
Joaquin County, and the water district, and no opposition from taxing agencies.
Continued May 28, 2008
In response to Mayor Mounce, City Attorney Schwabauer stated the ordinance will not
pass tonight as it must be voted on at a regular meeting. Mr. Schwabauer stated he is
hesitant to give legal advice regarding a referendum because, if he gives advice to an
individual who is going to circulate a referendum and he is wrong, it places the City in a bad
position. Mr. Schwabauer stated that, in providing a response to a Council Member directly,
he will state that a referendum generally includes that an ordinance may be subject to a
referendum, a standard percentage of signatures is usually 10% based on the last election,
specific language indicating what a yes and no vote means, circulation to obtain signatures
with the ordinance and proposed language, verification through the City Clerk and Registrar
of Voters, ballot placement requirements, preparation of title and summary, and a fiscal
analysis. City Clerk Johl stated she concurs with the City Attorney and there are no
additional requirements other than those set forth in the Election Code and as indicated by
the City Attorney.
Hearing Ooened to the Public
00 Robert Emmer, representing the Library Board of Trustees, spoke in favor of the
proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project based on possible benefits to the
Library through improvements to the same.
00 Nick Santoya spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding indebtedness and ballot placement for voter
approval.
0o Jerold Kyle spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project
based on concerns regarding indebtedness.
00 Ken Bingamaxl spoke in favor of the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project
based on the possible benefit to the proposed development area, including
improvements to schools and downtown businesses.
00 Phyllis Roach spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding indebtedness, errors on the current map of the
proposed area in comparison to the original map, and housing.
0o Constance Zweifel spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding blight designation and ballot placement for voter
approval on ballot.
00 Eunice Friederich spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding indebtedness and double dipping for utilities.
00 Pat Patrick, representing the Chamber of Commerce as Chief Executive Officer and the
Loel Foundation as a Board of Directors member, spoke in favor of the proposed Lodi
Community Improvement Project based on possible benefits to businesses, job
creation, reduction of crime in the Project Area, improvements to infrastructure,
increased property values from redevelopment, and overall benefits to seniors in the
community including housing options.
00 Barbara Flockhart spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding indebtedness, the lack of voter approval, and the
length of possible debt of 40 years.
0o John Talbot spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project
based on concerns regarding blight designation and diversion of funding from the
County.
0o Georgianna Reichelt spoke in opposition to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on concerns regarding the lack of voter approval through the ballot
process, examples of redevelopment in San Diego, funding lost to schools, use of
eminent domain, and the need for businesses to take care of their own properties.
W
Continued May 28, 2008
00 Dale Gillespie, representing himself as a developer and the Loel Foundation as a Board
of Directors member, spoke in favor of the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project based on benefits for senior housing, general affordable housing options, and
the City's long history of not using eminent domain that will likely remain the same.
00 Nancy Beckman, representing the Lodi Conference and Visitors' Bureau (LCVB), spoke
in favor of the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project based on possible
improvements on Cherokee Lane that could be made through redevelopment, which will
help keep tourists in the City for lodging purposes.
00 Ed Atwood spoke in neutrality to the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project,
stating individuals moving in a blighted area should be screened. He also asked
specific questions regarding a parcel of land left outside of the proposed area and the
use of redevelopment funds for new structures as well as rehabilitating old ones.
oo Chuck Easterling of the Downtown Lodi Business Partnership spoke in favor of the
proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project based on the benefits to the
community and the removal of eminent domain.
00 Beth Kim, representing herself as a developer of the Comfort Suites and a member of
LCVB, spoke in favor of the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project based on
possible benefits to the Cherokee Lane area.
oo Steve Spiegel, as a property owner along Lockeford Street and the railroad, spoke in
favor of the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project based on possible
improvements to the proposed Project Area.
Public Portion of Hearing Closed
In response to Mayor Mounce, Mr. King stated the City does not currently have an ability to
build a Wal-Mart in the middle of the east side of the City as indicated by a speaker due to
an ordinance that prohibits the use of eminent domain for private purpose. He stated an
agency does have the power to acquire through just compensation to the owner land for a
public purpose, which may include infrastructure improvements or rights of way. He also
generally discussed the process associated with the same including the need for a
resolution of necessity, purchase amount held in escrow, a court determining value of
property and just compensation, and when a seller may wish to go through such a process.
In response to Mayor Mounce, Mr. King discussed ordinance adoption at a regularly
scheduled meeting, the prohibition against using eminent domain for a private purpose, and
approximately 30% of redevelopment agencies in the state not having eminent domain in
the beginning and not adding at a later date. He also stated that, if eminent domain was
ever considered at a later date, the process would need to be redone, including ordinance
introduction and adoption, formation of Project Area committees, amendments to the plan
and environmental documentation, timelines associated with the same, property
identification, and the whole process would be subject to a referendum.
RECESS
At 8:41 p.m., Mayor Mounce called for a recess, and the City Council meeting reconvened at
8:52 p.m.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
B-1 Mr. King stated redevelopment law is very specific as to how comments, in writing or
(cont'd.) orally, are responded to. He stated the comments were received and written responses
will be made prior to the proposed June 18, 2008, date for the regularly scheduled meeting
of the City Council where this topic will be considered.
Continued May 28, 2008
In response to Mayor Mounce, Mr. King stated that, with respect to Mr. Atwood's
comments generally, the City Council designated a Study Area approved by the Planning
Commission, all parcels were reviewed, vacant parcels generally work against the 80%
urbanization requirement, there may be an active agricultural use on the subject property,
and redevelopment funds can be used for new infrastructure and construction, although it
must be consistent with the General Plan as well.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Hansen, Mr. King stated future City Councils Wll have
the ability to make decisions on individual projects as they come before them.
In response to Mayor Pro Tempore Hansen, Mr. King provided an overview of the City
Council's consideration of an initial report in November 2007 of what a redevelopment
project may look like, the Project Area is preliminary until such time as it is adopted, while
the process is fairly narrow the legislative discretion of the Council is broad, an area cannot
be added to but can be deleted from, and the Planning Commission determines what the
area is and if it is consistent with the General Plan. He stated the Planning Commission
went through the process and made the recommendation as is currently presented to the
City Council.
In response to Council Member Johnson, Mr. King confirmed the only action recommended
for tonight is the transmittal of the report from the Agency to the City Council.
Mayor Mounce stated she will not support the recommendation based on her concerns
regarding long-term improvements to the east side of town, free enterprise, growth of
government, indebtedness, and an option to vote on the ballot.
Mayor Pro Tempore Hansen stated he will support the recommendation based on the ability
to use redevelopment as a tool to address long-term infrastructure projects and the need to
bring in additional dollars to the community.
Council Member Johnson stated he will support the recommendation based on the ability to
address improvements in the east side of town.
Mr. King stated staff will respond to comments pursuant to the law and agendize the matter
for the June 18, 2008, regular City Council meeting.
MOTION / VOTE:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi, on motion of Member Johnson, Katzakian
second, adopted Resolution No. RDA2008-04 authorizing the transmittal of the report from
the Agency to the City Council pursuant to law. The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Members — Hansen, Johnson, and Katzakian
Noes: Members — Mayor Mounce
Absent: Members — None
Abstain: Members — Hitchcock
C. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
9:23 p.m.
ATTEST:
Randi Johl
City Clerk
al