HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-22 - AGENDA REPORTS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (2)REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22,1994
Executive Director Caravalho:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Directors of the Agency, it's kind of interesting that in the
last few weeks we've had meetings in many different areas, really interesting areas actually; the tent, the
bank building, and now here. I really look forward after becoming so dependent in our City Hall to
getting back to our own building. I might say that for the benefit of the audience that the Redevelopment
Agency is a separate legal entity and it conducts itself under separate laws and a separate Board of
Directors. That's why Council adjourns itself from the City Council to being the Board of Directors and
the meeting is conducted separately.
What we have before us this evening is the Santa Clarita Recovery Plan, and that is being presented
through the Redevelopment Agency. This agency was formed some time ago but has been somewhat
inactive because of not having a project area established. Since the City experienced the devastation of
the earthquake on January 17th, we have been exploring a number of ways to provide a vehicle for
addressing the problems to try and expedite the recovery for the community and that is being provided
under the state law of the State Community Redevelopment Financial Assistance and Devastation Law.
This item is presented to the Board, complete program which we will spend a fair amount of time trying
to discuss and provide greater clarity on the part of the staff for the Board, members as well as the public.
I will just barely highlight some of the key features here and then as we go through our presentation I
will hope that they will become much clearer to everyone.
First of all, what we were trying to do was to try as best as we could to comply with the state
redevelopment law. That law was changed effective January 1 and, therefore, we have to meet the
criteria developed under that revised law. In addition, we are also under the provision of the emergency
powers that have been provided through that law and the City to establish this redevelopment
organization. One of the first criterium that we are looking at is that 80% of the project area would be
1
urbanized. That is why in the presentation the staff will cover those areas that have been recommended
that are larger open space areas that need not be included. In addition, we're asking that there be an
exemption for those areas that were annexed to the City subsequent to the incorporation. Again, we
evaluate that in the context of meeting the spirit and the intent of the law. In keeping with the disaster
response focus of this law, we are also suggesting that residential area of Valencia be eliminated after 9
years and the Council and the Board might recall (the tape ended at this point)
(next tape began at this point) tax in jurisdictions as well as would impact this 30 -year program that is
being presented. The program that is being outlined for the first year focuses on residential. There are
four categories. One is the disaster relief goal. That is the primary focus. Secondly, we are looking at
infrastructure goals to repair the infrastructure. Thirdly, economic development community revitalization
goals; and fourthly, the low and moderate income housing goals which is part of the law that requires
that 20% of the money must be expended in the area of low and moderate income housing.
The first year focus is on residential repair...
RDA Counsel, Newton:
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I hesitate interrupting but the comments that are being made by the executive
director are properly part of the public hearing process, and I would suggest at this time the Agency, the
Cormnission, may wish to declare the public hearing then continue the comments and deem the prior
comments to be part of that public hearing.
Chairman Pederson:
And under those conditions if I open the public hearing will this be the proper place to read the
procedural statements into it or later.
Counsel Newton:
2
Actually that can be done later following these proceedings
Chairman Pederson:
Following, ok. I'd like to now open the public hearing and for the sole purpose of maintaining the
viability of the discussions and also to state that the previous statements that have been made are part
of the public hearing. It is now open for public hearing.
Counsel Newton:
That is sufficient Mr. Chairman, however we should confirm the notice
Asst. Secty. Grindey:
The agenda for this meeting was duly posted in accordance with applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
I have in my possession affidavits of publication relating to the notice of this hearing which notice was
duly given as required by law.
Chairman Pederson
Mr. Caravalho, please continue.
Executive Director Caravalho:
Now that we are legal and proper, I'm merely highlighting the points. Staff will give you much more
detail because it is a complex issue and we want to have some assurance not only that we comply with
the law and get this all as a matter of record but also that we provide as good information as we can for
people to understand it.
As I indicated the first goal was disaster relief, the second infrastructure, economic development, low and
moderate income housing. The first year the focus is dealing with the residential/commercial issues of
the homes that were damaged. Secondly, we have a lot of concern of the mobilehome parks that were
also substantially impacted, and then dealing with technical assistance in terms of how to help business
and residence that have inquiries about what options may be available to them
The potential first year program amounts to an excess of four million dollars. Again we will give you
more detail in as much of the 30 -year program about what specifically these items are all about. One of
the things that will be very complicated relates to well how do you finance all this? Where does the
money come from? We will be discussing the issue what is called tax increment financing. The best way
to explain that is those little charts that you will see over there, that the staff will talk about, which talks
about that increment below the base year which is the year that the Agency is formed and that projecting
on the appreciated value of property into the future and the Redevelopment Agency getting 50% of that
money while the other 50% continues in the coffers of the existing taxing jurisdictions. So you will hear
more about that. This certainly is a very exciting, complicated, ambitious, challenging program that you
will hear about. As a matter of fact, the total number of dollars involved over 30 -years exceeds 1 -billion
dollars. So you can see this proposal has substantial information that people will be interested in. Those
really reflect my comments and at this time, I think we need to take time to proceed with the normal
public hearing process and we can then ask the staff to make the formal presentations.
Counsel Newton
Mr. Chair -man, I think starting with the affidavit of publication there should be an action. The chairman
would order filed and marked as exhibit one the affidavits of publication.
Chairman Pederson:
O.k. that's what I just said.
Counsel Newton:
It would be appropriate for the chairman to make comments commencing on page 2.
Chairman Pederson:
Are you talking now about the procedures for the public hearing?
Counsel Newton:
Yes.
Chairman Pederson:
Do I need to start with the first one and get all of this into the record?
Counsel Newton:
That would be appropriate.
Chairman Pederson:
This is the time and place. You're gonna have to listen to me for a while folks but it is a legal
requirement. This is the time and place set for the public hearing before the Santa Clarita Redevelopment
Agency for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed Santa Clarita Community Recovery Plan
by the Agency and the recommendation for adoption of the same by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita. Has the agenda for this meeting been posted in the manner prescribed by law and has notice of
this public hearing been given in the time and manner prescribed by law.?
Asst. Secty. Grindey:
The agenda for this meeting was duly posted in accordance with applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
I have in my possession affidavits of publication relating to the notice of this hearing which notice was
duly given as required by law.
5
Chairman Pederson:
The affidavits of publication are ordered filed and marked as exhibit 1. The records of this meeting
should disclose that copies of the proposed plan and attached exhibits, the report required pursuant to
Section 33352 and attached exhibits and rules governing participation and re-entry references for property
owners, operators of businesses and tenants have been on file in the office of the Secretary of the Agency
and the office of the City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita for public inspection. All of those documents
have also been presented to each member of this Board.
The Agency caused the proposed Santa Clarita Community Recovery Plan to be prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (commencing at
Section 33000, et seq. of the Heath and Safety Code) and in accordance with the provisions of the
Community Redevelopment Financial Assistance and Disaster Project Law (commencing at Section 34000
et seq. of the Health and Safety Code). After presentation by the Executive Director of an overview of
the proposed Plan and the reasons for its adoption, we will undertake to hear evidence from the City's'
consultants as well as the City staff and those members of the public who desire to present any relevant
evidence relating to this matter. Before calling for that evidence, I wish to advise all persons present this
evening that the procedure for adoption of the proposed Plan pursuant to both of the laws I have cited
requires both the Agency conduct a hearing and that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita conduct
such a hearing. The City Council hearing will be conducted following this Agency's hearing and action,
if any, on the Plan. I wish to inform everyone that the evidence which is presented as part of the
proceeding before this Agency will be deemed to have been presented to the City Council at its meeting
which will be held immediately following. The purpose in making this statement is to avoid the problem
of a lengthy presentation before the Agency and then duplication of that same evidence before the City
Council in view of the fact that the membership of the Agency Board and the City Council is identical.
Now we will proceed with the Agency's hearing. I'll ask at this time that the Executive Director give us
an overview of the purpose of this proceeding.
Executive Director Caravalho:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this hearing is to present to the Agency for its review a
proposed redevelopment plan entitled "Santa Clahta Community Recovery Plan" which is proposed for
adoption, as the Chair has indicated pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law and the Community
Redevelopment Financial Assistance and Disaster Project Law found in the Health and Safety Code. The
Plan has been drafted by the City staff assisted by consultants employed for that purpose. You have
before you among other documents, the proposed Plan for your consideration. If you find the Plan
acceptable and the Agency wishes to proceed, you should by adoption of the resolution at the close of the
hearing approve the Plan, and recommend that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita take the steps
necessary to adopt the Plan.
The earthquake occurred on January 17, 1994, and it was rated at least 6.6 on the Richter scale. There
were numerous aftershocks resulting from the original earthquake as well as other earthquakes. There
was an estimated total damage to the City of at least two hundred twenty n-dllion dollars ($220,000,000.00).
As a result of the determination by the staff that the disaster gave rise to an emergency within the
meaning of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA), an administrative determination was made
that the project, which includes the adoption of the plan and all of the related documents, is a project
within the meaning of CEQA but is exempt from CEQA compliance for two reasons because the disaster
is an "emergency" within the meaning of CEQA and the project is required to mitigate such emergency
and because the project is undertaken to maintain, repair, restore, demolish or replace property or facilities
damaged or destroyed as a result of the disaster. You will find in your material the CEQA documentation
prepared by Ms. Harris. With your permission, I will now introduce to you the consultants employed
by the Agency for assistance in the preparation of the Plan and the documentation of the necessity
therefore. Mr. Donald Duckworth, and Mr. Stephen Peck, whose resumes I am submitting to you at this
time, as those consultants. I ask that their resumes be made a part of the record and submitted to the City
Clerk..
Chairman Pederson:
The resumes will be marked as Exhibits 2 and 3 and included in the record.
Executive Director Caravalho:
I will now call upon Mr. Duckworth and Mr. Peck to present to you the additional evidentiary material
which purports to justify the adoption of this Plan pursuant to the applicable laws cited.
Mr. Duckworth:
Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Don Duckworth, Special Consultant, employed by
the City of Santa Clarita to assist in the development of this Santa Clarita Community Recovery Plan. I
am very happy to be here with you tonight to help you work through this. As we talked about in the
process of this disaster and putting together this Plan, in fact, in putting together the City of Santa Clarita
it must seem to many of you much as it seemed to the fellow in the Myth of Sysaphus who was
condemned to roll the rock up the hill and constantly have it roll down and constantly be charged with
pushing it back up that you're much in the same situation with this earthquake. Here you've just
incorporated as a city, you've just gotten a staff hired, just adopted some capital improvements, and
operating budgets and gotten some things really going and happening and all of a sudden on January
17th comes an earthquake that seems to knock you back to the bottom of the hill and put you in a position
where you have to start all over. I think though we've been able to find a silver lining, to borrow a
phrase from the L.A. Times used recently in describing some of the reactions that have been created as
a result of the earthquake. The silver lining is that there is an opportunity for the Council to recover by
utilizing the Community and Redevelopment Disaster Law in order to, not only recover and provide
disaster relief from the earthquake, but also to advance some principal purposes that you identified in
n
your adopted General Plan.
We're going talk a little about that this evening. This is first of all not the first time that redevelopment
has been discussed in this community. I think about a year ago you had a series of consultants come in
and talk to the Council about the feasibility of setting up a redevelopment project area, but in view of
the complexities of the current law and the cost involved, you decided at that point in time to let the
process take aback bumer kind of position for awhile. Most recently, this Council directed preparation
of the Community Recovery Plan that you have in front of you on the day after the earthquake, I believe.
And then at your last Council meeting, adopted a survey area which was part of the legal process that
n-dght be required to formally get this project in front of you. So this is really the third time in the recent
month that this has come up.
All of that raises the question, why are we talking about redevelopment? What's so special about the
redevelopment process. Mr. Caravalho hit upon that, I think, a little bit but I'd like to clarify just a little
for the audience and the Council. First of all, the California Redevelopment Law expands your
governmental powers as an agency. You have powers with the Redevelopment Law beyond the police
power. You have the power to affect repairs for earthquake damages. You have the power to help
residences repair their homes, if necessary, and repair fences, if necessary. You have the power to help
businesses relocate to a more desirable location to facilitate their on-going commerce. You have the power
to help businesses relocate to the Santa Clarita Valley in order to help the economy locally grow to
restore the previous vitality that you enjoyed prior to the damage of the earthquake. All of these powers
are beyond the traditional governmental police powers and represent the reason for looking at the
Redevelopment tool that we have before you tonight. The second and as significant of a reason is the tax
increment financing methodology. Mr. Peck will explain that with these charts in back of me in just a few
minutes for you as well as the way in which this little bit of money, the tax increment, could be leveraged
through the issuance of so called tax increment bonds.
z
First of all, to help the proceedings tonight I'd like to clarify that the documents that have been placed
before you (I should note these have been on file with the City Clerk's office for public review for a
statutory period of time), and in fact in many ways as we talk about this program tonight, the City
Manager's instructions that we've been given, to guide our conduct, to guide our process, is that he
desired that we go beyond the mere letter of the law and look at the spirit of the law and attempt to
comply with fully the spirit when the legislature adopted the redevelopment law. There is at least some
readings of the letter of the law that would say that maybe the full notice that we provided wasn't all
necessary and yet we went the extra steps to provide that notice at the City Clerk's Office and also to the
other agencies that would be affected in order to assure that everybody know what we are doing here
tonight,
The documents before you tonight relate in a little different format to the Council packet items, although
we will follow the Council Agenda as we consider them basic to the documents is the staff report, which
is Mr. Caravalho's cover memo that he has forwarded to you, and that you have had an opportunity to
read. The report to Council is the next major document which is a legally required report that describes
the Redevelopment Plan that's being proposed here tonight. We call that the Community Recovery Plan
as opposed to the Redevelopment Plan but the language is interchangeable. The Report to Council
describes the more factual substance; what's in the plan; why we've included certain provisions of the
plan as well as the disaster law under which we're proceeding this evening. The Report is probably going
to be a whole lot more fun to read than the Plan wl-dch reads more like a Webster's Dictionary or some
dry section of some code which is really what it is - the technical legal description of the powers and
authorities of the Redevelopment Agency. It's a description of the land uses that will be used within the
project area which parenthetically are exactly the land uses that you have approved in your adopted
General Plan. It is an explanation of the financing activities which will be undertaken in connection with
the plan. Also in the document there are a number of attachments. There are several General Plan area
of the City, there is also maps of the projects maps that we are recommending so that you have a feel for
iN
the boundaries that we have selected and we'll talk some more about that in just a few minutes. All of
the legal attachments that are required under the code are included in the binder so that you have a full
record of those and have those available for the community. Last but certainly not least, the item that the
Mayor referred to initially, the owner participation rules are provided in the package of information. The
owner participation rules which by law must be adopted for the Redevelopment Plan by the
Redevelopment Agency, provide for identifying and describe the rights and responsibility of people that
have an interest in the land that is encompassed within the project area and also at the Redevelopment
Agency for conduct of their business. So, again, that's one of those technical, legal kinds of law book
kinds of plans that doesn't make much fun for reading. So we apologize for that.
The documents that we have provided to you, and I drink a note that we need to make are really about
what they are is the minimum structure that's absolutely necessary to get in front of you for adoption
consideration that allows you to respond in a timely fashion to the earthquake disaster that occurred on
January 17, 1994, a very little more than a month ago at this point. There still needs to be a lot of work
done in terms of defining and putting a lot more flesh on the bones on some of the particular programs
and activities that the Redevelopment Agency will undertake. We've given some broad based budgets,
some general directions in terms of budgets and those that need to be refined and Council direction will
be involved in every step of that process as well as activities with your staff. I imagine at the next
Council meeting or the one after that we'll continue this process, I should say, and bring at least several
of those elements back to you and allow you to respond quickly with financial assistance if that be your
desire to the disaster emergency.
Last but not least, as we get the house in order here before we start our presentation, I'd like to make
mention of some documents that we distributed to you on your dias this evening through the City Clerk's
Office. We noted that there was a typographical error in the Executive Director's transmittal
memorandum, A figure was misplaced where the memo talked about a nullion dollars that was intended
11
to be a seven million dollar figure that could be raised by the bonding of the tax increment number.
We've actually clarified that number now so the figure that we put in the revised memo is that six to ten
million dollars could be raised through a tax increment bond issue to provide for the first years'
operations of the Redevelopment Agency. Also we noticed that there was a computer addition mistake
in the incrementation plan that was included in your binder. None of the numbers changed in the matrix
that was provided to you but the computer wasn't adding correctly over a couple of the follow ups so
we re -added the numbers and have redistributed the implementation plan with the correct additions.
Also included on the dias tonight is the City Disaster Declaration which was intended to be included in
the package that was provided to you earlier as well as additional assessor parcel numbers to be excluded
from the redevelopment project area and we'll talk about that in just a moment as we talk about factors
and elements that we considered as we developed our recommendation on the Project Area to be
recommended to you this evening.
Counsel Newton:
Mr, Chairman it might be appropriate to note for the record that all of the revised documents have been
copied and provided to the public. They are on the table in the back. Thank you.
Chairman Pederson:
So noted.
Mr. Duckworth:
I think that one quick comment is in order about two other aspects that we talked about tonight. One is
the Disaster Relief Law. The Disaster Relief Law was passed by the State legislature in the early sixties
after the Crescent City Earthquake, but was not used at that time to generate a response to that
devastation. It was used by the City of Whittier in response to the Whittier Narrows Earthquake in 1987
and they formed a disaster based Redevelopment Agency. It was also used by the City of San Francisco
12
in response to the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. Santa Clarita will be the third city to take advantage
of the provisions of 34000 et seq. Health and Safety Code to form a Recovery Agency assuming you
choose to do so.
The benefits of this process is that it provides certain exceptions and a streamline procedure that allow
you to respond more quickly. Instead of the typical nine months to a year that it would take to fully
prepare, evaluate and process a plan under the Redevelopment Law we were able to complete this process
in slightly over a month. That's very quick. Some of the exemptions and streamline procedures include
an exemption to finding of any blight, an exemption to the Envirorunental Review Laws as the City
Attorney has mentioned and certain other procedural hoops normally required before plan adoption.
Many of those are outlined in the introductory section of the report to Council in the data binder.
The second law that I'd like to mention is the Comprehensive Redevelopment Reform Act also known as
ABI290 which became law January lst of this year. Basically, revisions that the law brought into affect
were directed at correcting at what the legislature had deemed to be abuses to the redevelopment process
and in every case we tried to read that law together with our proceedings under the Disaster Relief Law
even in cases where by the letter of the law they might not necessarily be so, in order that the approach
here in Santa Clarita would be above reproach and recognized as such. Revisions in the AB1290 include
an expanded definition of blight language limiting the amount of vacant land included in a project area.
Pass through agreements that previously had to be negotiated with the other taxing entities are no longer
required because the law includes the formal distribution and percentages of tax monies that are shared
among the agencies. The life of the plan was limited. The Plan life that we are recommending to you
was thirty years that the maximum amount that's allowed under the Redevelopment Reform Act. You
can repay debt up to forty-five years. There is one particular piece of the Plan that we are recommending
for a life of only nine years and that's because we think we can take care of the earthquake damages that
were caused in the Valencia residential area within that nine-year period then return that to the tax rolls
13
in keeping with the spirit of the Comprehensive Reform Act. Also the AB1290 requires an implementation
plan. We've included one of those for your document here tonight and we think that goes above and
beyond what was required by the letter of the law.
Maybe the way to start going through the report and, that's basically what we're going to be doing,
Stephen Peck and I are going to be going through the Report to Council, because much of that
information needs to be put on the record verbally as well as some of the evidence needs to be submitted
formally to the City Clerk in this public hearing process so that the public and everybody has a chance
to see it, hear it, review it, and comment on it if they choose to do so. I will be reviewing the introductory
comments on the report as well as sections talking about the Project Area selection, the general objectives
of the Redevelopment Plan and why the private sector isn't able to accomplish these recovery efforts on
their own.
Stephen Peck will be talking about the financial aspects of the Plan and some of the specific programs that
we are recommending that you undertake as a result of its adoption.
The cleanest way to probably consider the Plan overall, and one we begin to refer to in the public notice
memorandum that we provided to the Council and the Agency Board, was to talk about the major
objectives about the plan, Roman numerals I through rV; disaster relief, infrastructure, economic
development and community revitalization, and housing improvements. Each of these areas has formed
what we call the legs of a four -legged stool and supports the Redevelopment Plan that we are
recommending to you tonight. The Community Recovery Plan that we suggested is an implementation
tool for your adopted General Plan. As evidence we are going to be subirdaing tonight to the record for
evidence, a copy of the adopted General Plan, a copy of the background reports covering the General Plan
and a copy of the implementation program which describes the implementation of that General Plan.
14
Counsel Newton:
Those items should be received by the Commission as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.
Chairman Pederson:
It is so received and so marked 4, 5 and 6.
Mr, Duckworth:
See the City Clerk gets to carry all this stuff home
Chairman Pederson:
She could get some help.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
A lot of help, Thank you Don.
Mr. Duckworth:
The first leg of the stool was obviously earthquake relief and so as we were confronted with the question
first of all how much of the community or what portion of the community could you circumscribe as
being a Redevelopment or Recovery Project Area? We looked at the damage that was done by the
earthquake. The map over here which is the large version from which a photograph was taken and it's
included in your packet as an exhibit reflects a fairly even distribution of damage by the various dots
which describe different kinds of damage throughout the community. Based upon those dots it's kind
of difficult to say we're going to exclude one area or another. In your previous efforts the Valencia
residential area was excluded from the redevelopment plan primarily because it was not considered
blighted in any way. And yet if you look at this map that area of the commur-tity reflects one of the
highest concentrations of damage caused by the earthquake. So we came quickly to the conclusion that
15
this area of the community should be included.
One of the areas where there was relatively minor damage and became a candidate for exclusion was the
Sand Canyon area where there is only a couple of dots up there so at the point where we looked at not
a significant amount of damage up there we at least ear -marked the thought that maybe we wouldn't
include the Sand Canyon area. Later after we considered the value of the homes in that area and some
of the abuses that were commonly talked about in the redevelopment process we elected to exclude Sand
Canyon area as well because there was not a lot of earthquake damage and the value of the homes was
very high so we excluded that area.
The second thing that we looked at was, of course beginning with the City limits at the date of
incorporation, was the annexed areas, As we mentioned to you before, the annexation agreements that
we entered with the County of L.A. has certain language in them wl-dch would seem to raise an argument
if we were to try to include them in the Redevelopment Project Area. There is probably a good question
about whether that agreement or state law takes precedence but we don't want to even get near a
confrontation or that kind of a debate. We were here to try to adopt a Redevelopment Recovery Project
as quickly as possible to provide effective relief to the community and to not jeopardizes good
relationships with our County and so we excluded the agreement areas totally.
Our third element we had to take into consideration as we looked at the project area selection, was the
tin -Ling involved. Normally you do a survey, you have an engineering firm come out and do a full survey
of the Project Area and you'd submit all of the technical, legal description language which might describe
the Project Area. That might well have taken another sixty or ninety days so what we decided to do, with
the guidance of the City Attorney, was take the legal description of the City of Santa Clarita back the date
of incorporation less the annexations and then we also exempted out certain assessor's parcel numbers
by number because the engineering firm, the survey firm, when we called them later, can use those to
16
describe the legal boundaries of the area. So that's why you have this list in front of you that defines
all the legal parcels that we're asking to be excluded from the project area. So what are all those parcels
that we've provided you to be excluded? We have to work particularly hard to reach the vacant land
standard that's described in the law. That is no more than twenty -percent of the community being vacant
land that is included in the project area. As n -Light you'll recall your General Plan number was something
like 40-45% of the community was vacant when you adopted the General Plan and so the task was
formidable. What we did going kind of counter clockwise starting from the northern 1-5 portion of the
map was we started by excluding the golf courses. Typically associated as an abuse of the redevelopment
process is the inclusion of golf courses and the building of golf course homes using redevelopment dollars.
So we excluded the golf course land proper although we did not exclude residential areas adjacent to
them, those are separate parcels, we just excluded the golf courses. We also excluded the College of the
Canyons parcel. Further south we excluded all of the vacant ridgeLine property that's located at the
southern City boundaries that is undeveloped at the present time. We excluded Hart Park and the
cemetery, Proceeding to the northeast we excluded the vacant land which is the oil production properties
along Sierra Highway. We also excluded the water authority site; 460 acres or so, whatever the exact
measure is, water property site which is about in the middle of the City. We also excluded the Civic
Center site. One of the abuses talked about in Sacramento typically is cities using the power of
redevelopment to build city halls and that's not really something that the law was intended to do . So
the Civic Center site is technically removed from the redevelopment process. And so that forms a rough
review of the areas that were excluded. If Steve will help me and turn that map over you can see the two
phases of the Project Area that we recommended. The resulting Project Area kind of looks like swiss
cheese and that's the top Phase I project area that you see, the first phase Project Area that we are
recommending that you adopt as part of the Santa Clarita Community Recovery Plan. All of the darkened
areas are the areas which have been excluded in our recommendation to you. At the end of the ninth year
we're recornmending that additionally that darkened area shown in the Phase II map be excluded from
the redevelopment area through a formal plan amendment to the redevelopment project which would
17
exclude that area and return it to the taxing rolls for all the other taxing entities to benefit from. One of
the common complaints about the process is that too often areas are not returned to the taxing rolls in
anything like a ten year period. It's more like a forty year period. What we have done and you can see
the details on page 45 of your report document, is we have excluded some 8700 acres of vacant land from
the Project Area in addition to the exclusion of the Valencia area another 2400 acres will be excluded from
the Project Area, We have formed a Project Area that we think meets every test of the law.
In terms of some of the evidence requirements...
Counsel Newton:
Excuse me, before leaving the maps Mr. Chairman, it is suggested that the map designated earthquake
damages February 1, 1994, be received as Exhibit 7 in evidence.
Chairman Pederson:
So received, Exhibit 7.
Counsel Newton:
Further maps designated Phase I Project area and Phase II be received in evidence as Exhibit 8.
Chairman Pederson:
So received.
Counsel Newton:
And before we forget it, in addition the binder that contains all the supporting documents, it is suggested
that that be received in evidence as Exhibit 9.
W.
Chairman Pederson:
So received, Exhibit 9.
Mr. Duckworth:
Do we want to technically identify the list of assessor's parcel numberson. the additional list that we have
added tonight?
Counsel Newton:
Yes, that's right. The items in Exhibit 9 that are revised, the revised pages would be deemed the
appropriate portions of Exhibit 9.
Mr. Duckworth:
The assessor's parcel numbers that we included tonight distributed in addition to the separate list.
Counsel Newton:
Yes, the separate list of parcel numbers should be designated as Exhibit 10.
Director Darcy:
Why did they exclude the College of the Canyons?
Mr. Duckworth:
We excluded the College of the Canyons as a technical perspective on that piece of property that much
of it was vacant and had the appearance of rolling hills. And somewhat when you're concerned with the
spirit of the law as opposed to the letter you're concerned with appearances from the outside. I was
concerned about that appearance. At the same time the law provides that we can assist the College of
the Canyons with recovery project funding even though they're outside of the Project Area. There will
19
be a number of opportunities in the future to use redevelopment project funding to undertake projects
that are outside the Redevelopment Area if the Board can make the finding that the expenditure will
benefit the Redevelopment Area. So, for example, at the College of the Canyons, as we explained to Dr.
Van Hook, if we can make the finding that many of the students live in the community and that the
community will benefit from an expenditure going to help repair the gym, for example, or a music room
or library then we think that the expenditure will be legally justified even though that property is outside
the Redevelopment Project Area. So that was the rationale,
A summary of what all of this stuff is, is in front of Donna. The materials in the boxes in front of Donna
is the full city record of damage caused by the earthquake of January 17th. This is a summary list of some
28 items. Everything is included in that pile.. Everything from meeting minutes, resolutions of the
Council declaring a state of emergency, from the summary of authorities that the Agency in the City
exercised during the disaster, to the minutes of the meetings. In those boxes are copies, in fact, are the
original reports completed by the Community Development Building Division of private property damage
covered through the City of Santa Clarita. Also in those boxes are the original reports describing property
damage found in the City of Santa Clarita. There ia about 5 video tapes of damage found in the City as
the result of the earthquake. There are some 1406 public property damage photographs, some 895
photographs of private property damage and various other materials that should be accepted formally.
Counsel Newton
I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, that these items be collectively received as Exhibit 11, sub items 1-22.
Chairman Pederson:
So received.
Counsel Newton:
20
I beg your pardon --1 through 28
Mr. Duckworth:
So, all of that's been the discussion about the first leg of the stool for the disaster. The City Manager's
other part of his direction was to develop a Redevelopment Plan, a Recovery Plan, that in addition to
helping recovery or relief from earthquake disaster provided number two for infrastructure improvements
in this community, that has been very much needed since incorporation. We reviewed, in connection with
our work, a copy of an analysis of infrastructure needs completed by the Department of Regional Planning
for the County of Los Angeles, July 28,1989, by the firm of Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall which
describes some $911 million in infrastructure deficiencies in the community of Santa Clarita at the time
of incorporation, Just as a way to try to get a handle on how much $911 million dollars is, I asked the
Finance Director to run a calculation for me—if we had to go out and borrow that money, and to get it
for a favorable interest rate, like 5%, and a great payment period, Like 30 years, what would it cost. He
got me some great payments, $59.3 million a year totalling $1.778 billion, principal and interest at the end
of the 30 year payment period. So you can see, even though we're talking about Redevelopment Plan that
is going to generate $1.1 billion over the 45 year life of the plan and when you compare that with the need
to, in part, finance something like $1.77 billion in infrastructure needs the numbers have the same relative
scope --they're all big numbers. I would like to introduce this copy of the DMGM report into evidence.
Counsel Newton
As next in order would be number 12.
Chairman Pederson:
So marked and received.
Mr. Duckworth:
21
So that's the infrastructure leg of the stool. The third leg of the stool has to do with economic
development and community revitalization. The essence of the recommendations we have made are
contained in the adopted General Plan—Economic Development and Community Revitalization Element.
In fact, the attachments describing actual projects are included as attachments in your Recovery Plan with
the report tonight. There was a matrix that described projects by different locations and also a map
showing some 12 projects, I believe, specifically and Steve Peck will be referring to those more. In
connection with that effort, the City about a year ago comurdssioned a study by the firm of GRC
Redevelopment Consultants. The study was to define areas within the community that could properly
be termed blighted under the provisions of the redevelopment law and therefore, justified the creation
of a Redevelopment Agency within the City of Santa Clarita. GRC Redevelopment Consultants provided
a report to the Council and identified those certain areas where blighted conditions existed and I would
like to offer that report as well as evidence.
Counsel Newton:
That would be exhibit 13.
Chairman Pederson:
So marked and received as 13.
Mr. Duckworth:
At this point, I should note also, as a finding under the Redevelopment law that some land in the
community has been necessarily included within the proposed project area even though some of the
specific issues that we talk about don't necessarily apply to it. For instance, infrastructure deficiencies,
or blight, or earthquake damage. And that's been done because the inclusion of those properties is
necessary to provide for the uniform planning and implementation of development laws within the
community. Also, to provide for the uniform regulation of the building codes and for those regulations
OW
within the community and also because all properties in the community benefit in the same fashdon from
the redevelopment efforts so it's proper that they all be included together, all -be -it in a swiss cheese
fashion, as the Project Area for your review tonight.
The last thing I would like to talk about real quickly is why can't the private sector do this alone—why
do we need government to come in here and solve this problem of the Community Recovery Plan. And
the very simple reason is that the numbers are too big and too over -powering. We have at least $210
million that we've identified in our Report to Council worth of damage as a result of the earthquake. We
have $911 million, almost $1 billion back in 1988, in terms of infrastructure improvements that have not
been provided for the community. Last year's capital improvement projects, CIP, identified another $140
mil.lion, in unfunded projects for the community in terms of needing infrastructure. I would, by the way,
like to enter that into evidence as received.
Counsel Newton:
That will be exhibit 14.
Chairman Pederson:
So marked and so received.
Mr. Duckworth:
The numbers are too big and they're too over -powering. Moreover the damage out there in terms of the
very human damage to the residential areas of the community is very real and very unrelenting for some.
Four hundred (400) to 700 mobilehomes remain off their foundations and are without utilities at this time,
according to the Community Development staff today. Even after those improvements and repairs are
made after the mobilehomes are put back on their foundations, after the utilities are hooked up, there are
still some fundamental repairs to restore some of those units to livability which hasn't been provided for.
23
All in all, if you project the population to be expected, that is 600 to 1000 people living in mobilehomes
that have not been provided proper relief from earthquake disaster. There is an estimated like number
of mobilehome units without utilities, so maybe there are 2000 folks out there in various mobilehome
capacities that in my opinion may not have received the relief that they're looking for as a result of this
disaster. Additionally, we've all heard news stories or seen news stories of persons too strapped with
regular mortgage payments to be able to afford the additional costs that disaster repairs might confront
them with. We've seen some of the early claims of mortgage forgiveness become, well, you can be
forgiven for 90 days but then you better be repaid. And many people as reported are simply not able to
do this. Also, we understand there are cumbersome FEMA provisions in terms of the commercial
elements in the community, well before I leave the residential, today's figures indicate there are 164 multi -
and single family dwellings that remain red -tagged, that is uninhabitable, 582 multi -dwelling units and
single family units remain of limited entry status according to Community Development Dept. records
today. So we still have a number of residential problems that need to be attended to in the community.
In the commercial sector, we still have 45 uninhabitable commercial structures. We still have 61
structures that are limited entry. We're also hearing that some of the SBA loan programs and other
standard programs are being offered are not really usable to some of the owners because of underwriting
standards. Also, because some of the timeliness of some of the responses isn't what some of the
businesses or the homeowners would desire it to be. So the numbers are large and over -powering.
There are still some major problems in the community in terms of the human tragedy, human toll the
disaster has taken in and not only that we don't have any viable tools that allow us to create other
financing mechanisms other than this redevelopment process that we are suggesting. Sometimes we look
at new development to pay for infrastructure and yet by law, ie AB 1600, only new development can pay
for new infrastructure. It can't pay for past deficiencies or they can't pay for disaster repairs. Also, if we
did concoct some kind of new assessment district or some kind of new tax and applied it to the total City,
24
what we would be doing is hitting already strapped businesses or residences with another tax. That
would put them in an economic position in my opinion which would put them out of sink with the lease
market, out of sink with the economic market, and therefore it would be not economically viable and
could not provide relief and recovery to the community. For all those reasons, we found in our review
the private sector cannot bring about this recovery acting alone and we're recommending this evening that
you adopt the proposed Community Recovery Plan that we've provided to you.
Next in order—before I go there—one last thing relative to the General Plan, we have for the Agency more
to be marked in evidence --a summary of the General Plan policies of the adopted General Plan that
support creation and implementation of the proposed Community Recovery Plan and that should be
marked in evidence. What we've done, is gone through the adopted General Plan and identified all the
elements that talk about the redevelopment process.
Counsel Newton:
Yes, this would be 15.
Chairman Pederson:
So marked and received.
Mr. Duckworth:
Next, is Mr. Peck will talk about the financial aspects of the proposal.
Steven Peck:
Thank you. Usually when choosing a location for business, there are three things that any business wants
to focus on and those are location, location, and location. One of the things we often find useful in
explaining the financing for the Redevelopment Areas is: #1 - it doesn't raise taxes; #2 - it doesn't raise
25
taxes; #3 - it doesn't raise taxes
The way the Redevelopment Agency is financed is through tax increment financing. This simply means
that the Redevelopment Agency, rather than getting a zero share of the tax, now will be getting
somewhere between 45 and 50% share. The property taxes would have already been paid. The charts
I have on the board could probably illustrate better than I can say in words so why don't I just go to that
and illustrate it. This bottom part of the graph shows the property taxes that are currently being paid on
the $4 1/2 billion dollars worth of assessed valuation which is estimated to be in the Project Area. If it
happened over time with an assumed 4% growth rate, the property taxes would increase and without a
Redevelopment Project Area, all of this portion would be allocated as according to this formula and the
City would get 6 1/2%, the schools would get 27% and so forth. When a Redevelopment Project Area
is formed, that assessed valuation that is currently in place according to the base year valuation, is frozen
and its allocated just as it is today. For any incremental increases, the tax increment with the assessed
valuation as it occurs, that's the value increment and last year when you considered your redevelopment
plan, you probably heard a lot about negotiating with taxing agencies, how much is limited and going
to come back to redevelopment agency. That has all been resolved, AB1290 which has very specific
statutory tax sharing agreements, so that we know that rather than assuming that those might be based
on some future negotiations, that it has already been written in the law and hopefully in the first ten years
of the project area with approximately 25% is allocated to the other tax paying agencies who share in the
same proportion that they get taxes now. Approximately 45-509/6 of that goes to redevelopment activities -
20 points of that being for low and moderate income activities. The upper amount up here is the amount
that really goes to redevelopment activities both housing and non -housing,
Counsel Newton
Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Peck read the title of that graph so that...
26
Mr. Peck:
It is referred to as Tax Increment Allocation.
Coun el Newton:
May that be received as exhibit 16.
Chairman Pederson:
So marked and so received.
Director Boyer:
Can you explain the green and orange and yellow colors?
Mr. Peck:
The bottom amount, the green color, is the tax sharing; that's the amount that would be split to the
various taxing entities within the City. Based on the 25% of tax increments. This represents
approximately 25% of the tax increments. The orange color is the amount to be allocated to any basic aid
schools that are in need in the area. The remainder of that would be (tape unintelligible).
Director Boyer:
If the orange amount is allocated to the basic aid schools, does that mean that there's going to be some
lesser financing for our local schools. If that indicates (tape unintelligible) that would be the case to go
forward
Mr. Peck:
If the schools are basic aid schools, then essentially under this financing plan they get 100% of property
tax they would have received anyway because they will be getting their 20% share of the tax share
27
formula plus they're getting approximately 80% of what they would have received anyway. So I think
they actually make out ahead. It wasn't possible to determine in the Plan which schools would be basic
aid. We assumed that all of them are. In the case where they are not basic aid, some taxes will be
diverted to the agency. That money would be made up by the State so it would be offset by State
contributions to the school districts.
Director Boyer:
Now when you say that in some cases the school district may only get 80% out of the share, is that share,
in other words, is 80% a bigger pie because of the redevelopment generating more tax dollars because
there are newer buildings being built that are taxable so therefore the school district revenue may actually
increase rather than diminish by this activity.
Mr. Peck:
Yes. We normally don't include those sorts of estimates. It's been my personal experience that when you
have a Redevelopment Agency in place your property tax increment accelerates where there might be 5%
with schools where you can now build the road that entices business to come in. You may increase it to
25%, 1 know that one of the counties we work with in the Central Valley it was actually possible to
demonstrate it. They were able to make 50% more money than other (tape unintelligible).
Director Heidt:
I have a question. Can the school districts use their increments to bond to raise money?
Mr. Peck:
Yes they can. They can use it. Normally they're used for operations and schools. The state would simply
provide them with whatever property tax they don't receive, but it's not customary that the schools would
use property taxes. It might be the verdict in this sort of situation or an issue that would normally
M
consume the entire (tape unintelligible).
Director Heidt:
But if they are going to give an amount that may be above what they normally get could they not use that
as a security to float some loans?
Mr. Peck:
That's possible, yes. Some of the agencies that cannot afford for them to be school districts has actually
come out ahead, because they're able to look at that as a reliable source of funding. The next chart
illustrates just the tax increment portion of the base year valuation just to give you an indication of the
growth in the respective shares. Essentially the upper part of this graph is the amount that the
Redevelopment Agency would get for its housing functions the other portion being non -housing functions.
Housing functions being essentially 20% of the total property tax increment. The school portion being the
next piece in the tax sharing portion. Again, what this represents is simply the upper portion of non -base
year allocations indicates how a tax increment could grow in the community recovery area.
We have assumed that the base year evaluation of this project area would be approximately $4.5 billion
dollars. We consider that a prudent conservative estimate because we didn't want to come up with a high
number and did-n�t have a program to rely on that. It's essentially based on the assessed valuation as of
the date of incorporation. Inflating that on a compound basis by 2% per year. That's where we come
up with $4.5 billion dollars. In the first year, the first revenue year, which the first payment would be
the summer of 1995, the non -housing functions would be approximately $748,000 and housing functions
approximately $360,000, or over a million dollars. Over the entire five-year increment period there would
be approximately $17.6 million in tax increment for various housing and non -housing functions. That
amount would enable the agency with a 4% growth rate that it has received to go on for $52.8 million in
improvements. The implementation plan we will be talking about in a few minutes is based on that
29
assumption. Obviously, if we had a higher base year evaluation compounding is higher maybe we would
do more projects but our interest for this evening was to present what we think is a feasible plan to start
with. Once the increment calculations are actually made we'll have better estimates to determine whether
that $47 million for the implementation plan is actually just too far out or we can pun it in, we need to
look at that.
Counsel Newton:
Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Peck identify the second chart of graph.
Mr. Peck -
It's the tax increment allocation graph showing the increment portion.
Counsel Newton:
And may that be received in evidence.
Chairman Pederson:
Received and so marked.
Mr. Peck:
Based on the thirty year life of the plan it is closely correlated to the amount of time it would take to fund
the infrastructure deficiencies that you have, the long term econon-dc growth, it's our opinion that the
project is economically feasible and it is a sound in carrying it out. Also, that the Plan period, thirty year
life of the Plan and the fifteen year subsequent debt repay period for the plan are really necessary to the
purposes of the Plan since the $1.1 billion dollars in potential tax increment over the next 30 to 45 years
will really get you about $400 million dollars worth of improvements. Balance being simply interest.
30
The implementation plan that is in your packet essentially airs the four legged stool that Don talks about.
I won't repeat those issues except to say that there are probably five primaries, year 1 and year 2, 3, 4 and
5. That is the immediate repair, the disaster recovery and one of the actions that you'll be taking this
evening is the adoption of the Plan increment, the encouragement of the maximum degree and set feasible
with the provisions of dwellings suitable for the needs of families displaced by this disaster. Or by
redevelopment/rehabilitation activities. So that is one action you will be taking and its simply evidence
that you will be giving items those priority in the funding plan as it's reflected with 5 -year project
lin-titations. The five-year implementation plan is based on the amount of funding that we believe will
be available based on the 4% growth rate and assessed value and I'd like to quickly continue to nm
through the goals of the program and describe some items which may be of interest. The first one is to
assist and repair rehabilitation in businesses and homes. Programs under that would be residential repair
and rehab; commercial office repair and rehab; mobilehome repair as was discussed earlier that services
would be provided to those residents. Also a technical assistance program that would provide local
residents and businesses with the resource inside the City to expedite their plans as they start the
recovery. Also work with the local lending communities and leverage whatever dollars an agency n-dght
have so that there wouldn't be a 100% financing of the agency. Goal two is the repair of the
infrastructure damage caused by the disaster and to meet the ongoing and future needs of the
community. The first one and most important of which would be the City infrastructure repair which is
now ongoing. Financing assistance to other public agencies; a couple of those improvements that have
been discussed are Hart High School auditorium and public library improvements. Also mitigate
infrastructure deficiencies. You have in the record the short fall of the CIP, the $911 million dollar
estimate for the DNW Study as well as the damage that was caused by the disaster. Also the
infrastructure repair for future disasters, although that is unpleasant. It is something we come into this
evening to look at our emergency operation center and the reinforcement critical to bridges and other
critical facilities. Also to construct additional circulation improvements as the Board deems necessary
and some of those include the Sierra Highway Bridge improvements at Via Princessa and other production
31
of similar improvements. There are also other infrastructure improvements identified in your Economic
Community Revitalization Study, Those would be reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis with
the guidelines in your General Plan are included in the implementation plan. The third goal is the
economic development and community revitalization to county area, land redevelopment and economic
development. It's important to know that those categories which are typical redevelopment activities are
placed in lower priority in initial years of the Plan. We'll take your comments later as the recovery efforts
become more complete. Also we've suggested to you a fairly complete list of housing programs that can
be used to program your housing funds through the Redevelopment Agency and those that have been
replacement housing , housing rehab, rental rehab, loan program, first-time home buyers program, self
help housing, code enforcement, emergency repair grants, senior housing, special housing needs.
Overall, the five-year implementation plan amounts to $47 million dollars. Obviously that amount is
dependent on what your actual tax increment will be the first year. What is typical of most agencies is
that the first year or two of their life they receive operating and capital advances with their inter -fund
loans through the City that's close to them, or through other organizations, or agencies with the state and
federal government or sister agencies of the City. City staff is reviewing some of those alternatives prior
to coming to a conclusion on those. This will be brought back for your approval.
The last two items I'd like to cover have to do with physical planning and implementation and those
things that might affect relocation and dislocation of property acquisition by the agency. Its important
to note that this Recovery Property Plan does not include eminent domain for any residentially zoned
properties. Let me just say that one more time so that everybody is clear on that. This plan does not
include eminent domain powers of the agency on residentially zoned properties. It does reserve out that
power for non -residentially zoned properties because the GRC report indicated that there were some 2400
acres of property in the community that were either improperly parcelled, improperly sized or the vacant
land owners were some way hampered in the normal development process. It is often necessary to use
32
the eminent domain in situations like that to make sure you can assemble the whole package of properties
if in fact that is the desire. However saying that it is also important to note that this Plan nowhere in
the Plan does it contemplate any specific projects that will dislocate tenants or businesses. Those specific
City projects other than those that will get people back into their own homes or businesses that will be
involved in any sort of relocation systems. What we're trying to do is put back together what was there
and at such future time as you may or may not think your project is meritorious, at that time a necessary
relocation plan, a necessary relocation guideline, necessary replacement element plans will be prepared
so that you will have a current up to date knowledge of that replacement and relocation. Its also worth
mentioning that the owner participation rules which is the first item in your packet today, first action
you're taking was give in priority to owners and tenants for the development within the recovery area.
In developing fl -ds Plan we didn't want to presume what those individual owners' desires were in their
recovery efforts and so obviously no specific projects are prepared. Therefore, in the resolution and the
ordinance we do have a finding that there is adequate provision made for the dislocation or potential
dislocation of tenants and residents. That provision is that there are no projects being planned. The
implementation plan is not indicated, is not specifically a required element. We felt it necessary that for
the Board sake and the community sake to try and represent what it was we were trying to achieve in
this recovery effort. Both in terms of reflecting the prominence place on repairing what's been damaged
and also fixing some of the infrastructure deficiencies that have been outstanding for five or six years.
So with that I'll turn the presentation over to Don.
Mr, Duckworth:
I think the final comment I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board has to do first with
our consultations with some of the other taxing agencies. We wanted to be sure that the agency knew
that Lynn Harris and myself as well as Steve Stark, Finance Director, met with a number of the other
taxing agencies. We have not in the short time that we have had been able to meet with all of them. We
have some additional meetings scheduled and we will be scheduling some additional meetings to try and
33
meet with them and explain the Plan and explain why we think it works for them as well as the City of
Santa Clarita. On Tuesday, the 15th of February we met with Dr. Troy Branunlet of the Saugus Union
School District. On Wednesday the 16th of February we conducted a Public Information Resources,
Community Group type meeting, where we made a presentation similar to that which you've received
concerning the Community Recovery Plan recommendation. On Wednesday the 16th of February we also
met with Dr. Robert Nolet of the Sulphur Springs School District. On the evening of Wednesday the 16th
we had an open public forum where everyone in the community was invited to attend. We did radio
interviews to invite folks to come out, we did some newspaper advertisements to invite folks, if they
would like to attend. On Thursday the 17th of February we met with Dr. Diane Van Hook of the College
of the Canyons. Also on Thursday the 17th we met with Mr. Dave Vanetta from the Supervisor's office
from the County of Los Angeles. Also on the 17th we met with Newhall Land and Farm folks. On Friday
the 18th we met with Dr. Walter Swanson of the Hart School District at his offices and with Dr. Michael
McGrath at the Newhall School District at his offices. Meetings we still have to complete include meetings
with Mr, Bob Sagehorn at the Castaic Lake Water Agency and Mr. James Jinks of the Newhall County
Water District. So those meetings are scheduled that we have not completed. I wouldn't want to broad
brush all of it but I can say I think fairly that a number of the agencies were convinced that the
Community Recovery Plan would not present a difficulty or detriment to them. With all the entities we
talked about possible joint projects and activities that we could get involved in as a joint effort on behalf
of improving the quality of life in our community. You'll be seeing, I'm sure, copies of correspondence
that goes back to the various taxing entities and answering questions that they have raised and addressing
some of the interests that they have.
As we complete our comments here, I want to be sure that the Board heard my description of the area
that is included for the effective redevelopment of the area. Not all of the properties necessarily have any
of the particular conditions that we talked about either, damage from earthquake or blight influences or
need for econon-dc development that attach particularly to them but it is necessary to include those
34
properties for the effective redevelopment of the entire area and for the uniform application and
implementation of development laws. Additionally because all properties benefit in a like manner from
redevelopment its appropriate that they be in the Project Area. Along with the consultation with the
taxing entities we have scheduled as part of the implementation plan additional citizen participation. A
citizen participation plan has been developed for the Community Recovery Project implementation
consistent with the City Manger's policy and we will be spending more time with community groups and
citizens to try to insure that the programs that we define for your review later meet their needs as they
see them.
What we've tried to do here this evening, and I'm kind of looking at the attorneys and Steve Peck to make
sure that they think we have, is to explain the Community Recovery Plan that we presented with our
recommendation for your adoption as well as some of the rationale that justifies it and explains the law
that provides for its adoption. If there is any questions or if there is anything else that needs to be entered
into the record please let me know and we'll be happy to respond in any way we can. Last but not least,
the City of Santa Clarita staff has been particularly busy as all the Council has commented on and knows,
over the period of the disaster. It's been like seeing an entire City Hall look like one-armed paper hangers
running around and everyone has been extremely busy. I have to say that it's not often that you find
such a competent and dedicated group of city employees, They have been extremely helpful to us in the
preparation of these reports and I just want Council to know my high regards for them and high opinion
and how much we appreciate the ability to work with them in preparing this information. So if we can
answer any questions or give any other help we'll be happy to do so.
Chairman Pederson:
Members of the Agency you have now heard evidence from the executive Director and the City's
consultants. It would be appropriate at this time for members of the Agency to put questions to any of
those officials or make any other cornment that such member may deem appropriate with respect to the
35
proposed plan. Does anybody have any comment at this time from any of the Directors?
Director Boyer:
I think that probably some of the people who will read about this in the newspapers might initially feel
that as I'm sure that some people in this room did about an hour ago that they've been told well you have
cancer and the first question is well are you going to recover and the answer to that is yes and we're
gonna be in better shape when we recover than we were before we began, What we have is a real
opportunity to benefit. There are a lot of things that would require cooperation with other governmental
agencies such as perhaps Castaic Lake Water Agency, Newhall County Water District, school board
facilities.
To re-emphasize the point, there will be no new taxes; there will be no new taxes; there will be no new
taxes. That's going to be terribly difficult for a lot people to understand. It's not really easy to look at
a chart and figure out that oh yes the property bill does go up 2% a year if you hang on to your property
and yes there may be an earthquake where a few of the properties are reassessed downwards, but really
not very many because a lot of us have been in our houses a long time and they can't reassess my
$200,000.00 house or my $150,000.00 house, whatever it may be today, down below the $56,000.00 for the
assessment rolls, you know I just haven't lost that much. So what we're doing is using the increment to
accelerate the value of taxation so that the agencies that are being affected are going to lose a little bit of
tax money for a few years and then are most likely going to see greater increases in tax revenue than they
ever would have over the next 35 or 40 years. The other question I think that comes to mind is that you
hear these nominally large figures bantered about that look like a Los Angeles City budget, Los Angeles
County Budget, L.A. City School District budget or something of that sort. And it kind of makes people
perhaps lose sight of the fact that when you go out and buy a house whether it's a $22,000. condo that
I first bought in 1966, or the $53,000. house I bought in 1976, or whatever that ridiculous figure is, that
what the house is supposed to be worth now really doesn't matter. The point is that we signed on for
k1i
certain payments and after a very few years those payments looked pretty reasonable. And as time goes
by and you look at what you signed on for, and I only been making payments on my house for about
10 years in my present house 17 years time flies, but I've already got a house which is worth more than
all of the principal and all of interest I'll ever pay. So while there is a lot of interest built into this, a lot
of money over a long period of time, I'm hopeful that a lot of people are going to have the patience to
try to figure out exactly how redevelopment is financed. Although I teach economics I still don't think
I've gotten my lesson across tonight.
Director Heidt:
I just wanted to say that since I've been on the City Council and I've watched other cities use or misuse
redevelopment, I've been very frightened of it because I always wondered when people got big sums of
money, but the changes that have been made in the law allow us to operate in a way that says we've
don't put everything in this we exclude the things that look (tape unintelligible) I can see people now
accusing us of building a new City Hall out of this but this allows us to really get to the meat of it and
I just commented to Jo Anne that I want to be around in thirty years to see what we have done with this.
Because I think it will be amazing and I feel comfortable with the changes in the law that allows us to go
ahead and do it the right way.
Director Darcy:
I want to make one point for clarification here. We're not going to be able to prevent or tax the, not the
residential areas, correct? But you can do the commercial and industrial?
Executive Director Caravalho:
Yes.
Director Boyer:
37
Wait a minute, you say condemned or taxed. What do you mean by taxed?
Director Darcy:
Residential, but you can the other.
Executive Director Caravalho:
Yes, but there are no taxes involved other than the shift of taxes (tape unintelligible).
Director Darcy:
Well, the shift--- I understand that, but it's the condemnation that bothers me.
Executive Director Caravalho:
The eminent domain powers are very consistent with the agency because a lot of the times the problems
that you have especially in older areas relate to the size of the parcels and the configuration of the parcels
which makes it difficult to do a project. So the agency would channel the project and some cases
depending on deterioration would clear the project, I mean the property and then utilize that for a new
project, it could be a parking structure or whatever that n -Light be. That's why we think that those powers
wl-dch are consistent with the City Council by the way you have the powers also, eminent domain, should
remain for an industry, industrial and commercial property but not residential. There has been in the past
a lot of fear of that and I don't know what the Council vision would be about exercising those kinds of
powers in older areas of the community or whether you would want to pursue problems with
deteriorated neighborhoods by a rehabilitation approach or some other approach like that rather than the
use of eminent domain.
Director Heidt:
But I think, too, it allows us, if we need to use it for those purposes, to not use the Redevelopment
38
Agency exclusively to handle all the problems but I foresee that we use also the benefit assessment
districts, community reinvestment, and the use of other things. Use a combination of approaches and
never always putting all our eggs in one basket.
Executive Director Caravalho:
Mr. Chairman, I have one comment, I received a letter today from the CoUege of the Canyons that the
Agency should know about. Which in essence is indicating that they want to be included in the area and
I'm sure that they might testify to that; some of their representatives are here, It's something we possibly
should continue to talk to them as was indicated by the consultant a lot of this has to do with the vacant
space and the 80% ratio in terms of getting to those numbers. Also that we still have the ability to expend
funds in those areas that benefit the Agency. I wanted to just point out that the letter was received.
Director Heidt:
Is the college located on one parcel or is it already parceled into separate areas?
Executive Director Caravalho:
They have identified parcels for development that are....
Director Heidt:
So they have separate parcels so you could include some of the developed area and leave out the open
area.
Executive Director Caravalho:
Well, I think that may be up for discussion how we can do it. That we can meet our goals as well as
meet their goals too.
39
Director Boyer:
But there is no point in including land in the Agency area that is not taxable. The college does not pay
property taxes therefore there would be no income from tax increment financing on that property. So as
long as we can benefit the college as if they were part of the Agency it really doesn't matter whether
they're in or not.
Chairman Pederson:
It is appropriate at this time in this public hearing to allow interested persons, comments arid views
concerning the proposed plan and or the evidence presented by staff and or consultants. I have one
person who is signed up, Joan McGregor.
Joan McGregor:
I'm here tonight speaking as a newly elected trustee to College of the Canyons so I can bore you at other
times with other education issues and City boundaries. Tonight I'm here for College of the Canyons and
I will reference the letter the City Manager just mentioned from Diane Van Hook which basically I am
going to be referencing and we feel College of the Canyons should be included. First of all we want to
express our support for the undertaking that you are in setting up the Redevelopment Agency. We feel
this is very important. We actually have been asking you and have been involved in discussions to set
up that Agency with you the past three and a half years. I know that I came before you as part of the
EBC which was the Educational Benefit Corporation that's established by the college as a group of
volunteers who work for the college to try to look into asset management of the college site. I want to
clarify first of all one point, our site is occupied. We are not on undeveloped land. Of our 154 acres over
100 acres are developed property. So I think that's very important in your considerations.
Moving on, we want to see the College of the Canyons included in the Redevelopment Area. We feel
40
it's very important to work together as a team. We feel that in the past years the City of Santa Clarita has
had a map of the actual areas to be included and CCC representatives met with you. The City agreed
to a portion of our property along Interstate 5 which is the corridor there, to be included which we refer
to as Parcel 1 in the Plan. In a request that was made on February 16, that was the first date that we
were aware, last week, that we were excluded from this Plan. We immediately wanted to have a meeting
which was set up on the 17th. At that time the President, Diane Van Hook met and at that point we were
told not only was Parcel I excluded, the entire campus was excluded from the Plan. That was the first
notice we had. So, I'm sorry that more of my fellow trustees and other members of the EBC cannot be
here tonight - this has come up quite suddenly. The college is not, and I repeat, an undeveloped area.
It's a campus that serves 6000 students. We open our facilities and grounds to many other community
organizations. We hold sporting events for the schools, districts, throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. We
have our grounds used by the Sheriff's Department, we provide childcare. We're opening a new child
development center on campus. We make our services and library facilities available. Well right now
they are not available simply because we have such major damage there. But they will be up and running
soon. And with that we are planning a new library facility. Again the commitment of our community
college is to improve the community of our City. We respond to the local labor market needs. As you
know, we have worked together with the City as far as coming up with the employment development
center. We worked with Henry Mayo Hospital in regards to a nursing program. We work with key
employees in the major industries in this area -Magic Mountain, H.R. Textron etc. -to try and develop
positions and training for those employees.
I know my time is ending and I'm sorry because I do have a lot more to tell you about the College of the
Canyons and our needs to work together as a partner. We feel you're leaving us out and we feel we've
not been able to have the impact and understanding with you of what our needs are on campus. We have
over three and a hall million dollars worth of damage there to our campus. I've been up in Sacramento
last week meeting with legislators in regards to the needs of the college but in addition we need to work
41
with you as members of the City. I know right now I'm talking to you as directors of this agency but I
sincerely hope that you'll consider that and include the college in the Redevelopment Plan. I wanted to
make sure you all received a copy of that. Thank you.
Chairman Pederson: Alan Cameron
Alan Cameron:
Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. I have 3 questions and one commentary. My first question is this;
are there any differences from the area the consultants have recommended from the somewhat abbreviated
area that the other consultant suggested be the City's redevelopment area approximately 1 year ago that
the gentleman spoke in reference to before being submitted as an exhibit? My question is are there any
differences between the area he has described compared with the area that was in that other report
approximately 1 year ago?
My next question is when the annexations took place in Santa Clarita particularly the areas that are
inhabited such as the Pinetree Timberlane area and most recently the Copperhill area, moral and semi -
legal representations were made that people who would join the City of Santa Clarita would be benefiting
from all the benefits of Santa Clarita Cityhood. I know for a fact that people in both those annexed areas
have suffered earthquake damage and would be very desirous of any advantage that their fellow citizens
in the original incorporated area would receive. We think that under the equal protection clause of the
United States Constitution it would be difficult to withhold benefits of cityhood for who only annexed
versus people who happen to be lucky enough to be part of the initial incorporation area. So I'll put than
kind of in the form of a question; isn't there a vehicle whereby the people who have annexed can share
the benefits that there brethren in the older area of the initial incorporation may receive?
In this commentary, several references were made to the DMJM Study and those of you who remember
42
when this came out it's been thoroughly discredited primarily because it was far too pessimistic in its
assessment of the deficit. It indicated approximately 1 billion dollar deficit. Very detailed testimony was
submitted to the County of Los Angeles and submitted to the City simultaneously in 1989 to show that
that's approximately 55% of the true number which approaches nearly $2 billion dollars. When the
school and park shortfalls are in, for instance, in the school area alone, the DMJM study presumed that
the shortfall was equivalent to the AB2926 monies available which were about one fifth of the actual need
of the school districts. So it should be noted for the record that the DMJM study represents roughly 55%
of the true shortfall.
And the last question is this and an anecdotal example of why it's really a question. I originally had a
doctor who left California for a small town in near Denver who had purchased a home in Valencia,
Northbridge. During the time he purchased it to the time he left it it declined in value $150,000. Far
below what he could ... the sales price was far below what he was able to command in price and so he just
left and told the mortgage company they could do what they wanted and they have not to date, in my
discussions with him, damaged his credit standing. My question is if the assessed evaluations decline
rather than go up, then the agency has to assume financial burdens, how does it pay for the declining
assessment situation which as been the history here for the last 2 or 3 years?
Mr. Peck:
The first question about the abbreviated areas now proposed, essentially what you see now as the
abbreviated area in that the area referred to as the GRC area added on to what are the damaged areas.
Primarily residential areas in Valencia, Newhall, Saugus and that's essentially what you come up with the
same amount. We've determining which areas were blighted, which areas have the attributes of blight,
poor configuration of property, etc.. We used the GRC report, supplemented that with the damage
information that was visually represented on the map, and this detailed report, put those things together
to make the map.
43
With regards to the DMJM study we also thought that that was probably a fraction of what the
improvements were even if they were accurate at the time that they were provided. Some 6 years has
passed and inflation has now increased probably 20 to 25%. We thought it important for the record's sake
to submit something that was in a bound format that had been considered previously as the piece of
evidence. So we are very comfortable with that. That was a conservative estimate. We did not
exaggerate that estimate.
With regards to the decline in assessed valuation and what would happen to the bonds, its the bond
holders that take the risk for any payments that could not be made. And they are justifiably very
concerned about what the coverage ratios are because the bonds that are normally written are payable out
of the sole source of tax increment revenues and if there are no tax increment revenues there is nothing
to pay to the bond holders and the bond holders cannot look to the Agency or to the City for that. So
that is the primary risk just like your income might be the primary risk for a lender lending money for
a house.
Director Heidt:
I'd just like to point out that just because you're left out of this doesn't mean that we can't do projects
in those areas. What it says is that only these areas that are designated are we going to get the tax
increment income from. Not that we can't do projects in Pinetree, Timberlane or even Sand Canyon,
which has also been excluded and they are part of the old team.
Mr. Peck:
Two of the direct benefits that will occur to the 10 annexed areas in the areas that have been are excluded
are the infrastructure improvements which are to be paid out of the tax increments generated inside the
project area but certainly if a roadway traverses through a Project Area and goes through a community
that is not in the project area but provides a convenient means of access backed by 5 or east/west
connection that's certainly going to be a benefit. The only finding that you would need to make when
44
you consider a project like that is that that project is of direct benefit to the project area and that no other
reasonable means of financing is available. There is a second source of assistance that is directly available
and is customarily used throughout the City and that's the application of your housing funds. Normally
in subsequent items that you'll probably adopt will be the resolution authorizing the use of housing funds,
city-wide, just not for the Project Area so in a case where you may have some parcels that simply not
going to be in your annexed areas you can use those funds for that purpose as well. There are 2 ways
that the schools directly benefit the areas that have been excluded and you're certainly correct in that any
public facility that can be identified as being a direct benefit to the Project Area can qualify if its inside
or outside the Project Area.
Chairman Pederson:
I don't have any more slips from any more speakers. Are there any more comments to be made at this
time?
Walter Swanson:
I'm Walter Swanson, Superintendent of the William S. Hart School District. It feels unusual to be on this
side of the platform. We'll get our turn tomorrow night, we're discussing boundary changes. First of
all, I want to express appreciation to Lynn Harris and others who were visiting with me on Friday to
discuss the Plan. I appreciate that opportunity. I look forward to the cooperation that has started as part
of the development of this Plan. I do want to state, however, that we met Friday afternoon and at that
time we had already published an agenda for our meeting on Wednesday. It has been impossible for me
to have this on the agenda and to discuss this with our Board of Education &ds Plan and the possible
changes that might result even though we are familiar with the whole concept that the whole basic State
School District concept needs to be reviewed very carefully. The earliest we could have this on an agenda
with our compliance with the Brown Act requirements would be March the 9th. In order to report that
and I will be reporting to the Board at that time and probably back with Lynn and others as we prepare
45
that information and certainly give an opportunity to share with our Board more details of the Plan, But
as we work to comply with the Brown Act, as you do, it presents us with time issues that we haven't been
able to comply with at this time. So I wanted to share that. I'm also appreciative of the considerations
in the initial Plan for the modernization of the auditorium which I see as a community asset even though
it is on the Hart High School side. I think that could be very beneficial. We also look forward to
continuing dialogue about other ways that this kind of financing could benefit all the government entities
in our community in general and look to expanding the use of the libraries for example, or building
infrastructure technology for all of our citizens. We're looking at better recreational facilities that we see
as potential for this Plan but we need more time to explore that as I work with this Board for further
understanding. I wanted to report that this evening and look forward to continuing to work with you.
Counsel Newton
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question as to whether its possible to bring the annexed areas into the
project area. It is possible, if through negotiation with the County, the County would waive those
conditions that were attached to those annexations that otherwise prohibit putting a Redevelopment Area
within the annexation or including the annexation area within a Redevelopment Project Area. If the
County would either waive or modify those conditions, it would be possible by amendment of the Plan
to bring them into the Project Area.
Chairman Pederson:
I understand that description he just described. One thing that concerns me about College of the Canyons
not being included I have a question for you is California Institute of the Arts included?
Mr. Duckworth:
I don't remember off the top of my head.
46
Asst. Executive Director Harris:
I think it is.
Chairman Pederson:
It is included. I just think of College of the Canyons as one of the agencies that probably represents
community activity more than anything else and I find it difficult to find a reason for excluding them
other then to find that it possibly it doesn't give your formula the right n-dx.
Mr. Duckworth:
Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I think that you have the option, if you choose, to make it to
include the college or not. We excluded them from a technical point of view based upon the existence
of vacant land there. Yet, because they are a public agency they do not really affect the vacant, non -
vacant land mix. The other reason we excluded them is because we felt we would be able to provide the
redevelopment support that they might find desirable and still find that to be a benefit of the agency
therefore funded by the agency so we didn't think that it would have the impact on it one way or the
other. From my point of view I think that's clearly an option of the Council, you can go either way you
like.
Director Boyer:
This discussion about College of the Canyons reminds me of a visit we took to LAFCO some years back
when we were processing an application for our sphere of influence and a sphere of influence was denied
by LAFCO. The LAFCO Board basically said it doesn't really matter because a denial of your sphere of
influence doesn't really mean anything, It doesn't matter whether you have a sphere or not. Now we
know that LAFCO was making a statement that we found it difficult to believe. But the fact of the matter
is that I think this is a matter of perception. My feeling is if its important to the CCC administration and
Board of Trustees that they ought to be included so that there is no doubt about where we are coming
SFA
from.
Chairman Pederson:
How do you feel?
Director Darcy:
I think they should be included.
Director Heidt:
Well, I'd like to at the same time improve the communications and the gaps that we've had over the past
five or six years. I think I'd like us to work really hard at that as part and parcel of this, please
Joan McGregor:
I'd like to get this in. I truly feel a need. It came through again during the recent earthquake situation.
The lack of communication that we have and we need to improve it and I think we need to look at ways
the Community College District can interface with the City and with City staff and try to work together
in a variety of areas, whether it be recreational, economic interests and so forth and so I again as a trustee
will do my best to work towards that goal. I really would hope that you would reconsider. We do want
to be a partner in this and we think that it is a golden opportunity for both to benefit.
Chairman Pederson
Thank you. One of my jobs as chairman... Did you have something that you wanted to say, Mr.
Sagehorn.
Bob Sagehorm
Yes MT. Mayor. On behalf of Castaic Lake Water Agency we'd also like to acknowledge that we have not
FM
had the opportunity to meet with Lynn Harris as well as the County Water District. It was mentioned
but like the school district our next opportunity to put this on the agenda of the Board of the Castaic Lake
Water, Agency would be for a meeting on Mardi 9th. It does represent a slice of revenue that perhaps
is a little different than the school district and I think we'd like to have an opportunity to discuss this with
our agency and comment on it after the date of March 9th.
Chairman Pederson:
Thank you. One of the things that I got lucky being as Mayor and now being Chairperson of this is that
not only did I get the earthquake but I also got the job of taking a one hour presentation which is now
extended to two hours and try to get in a City Council meeting following this. So if there are no other
further questions by any member of the Agency Board and no one else decides to present evidence
concerning the proposed Plan, I then declare this public hearing closed. At this time it would be
appropriate for the counsel give direction as to what the following action should be taken. I have the
correct wording I would need some help on the addition of College of the Canyon if that were correct.
Counsel Newton
Mr. Chairman I think the first action of the Agency should be the adoption of the Resolution 94-1 which
declares the owner participation rules. That would be a motion to adopt the Agency Resolution 94-1.
Director Heidt:
I would like to move that the Agency adopt Resolution RDA94-1.
Director Boyer:
Second
Chairman Pederson:
49
Moved and seconded—Any further discussion? Mrs. Grindey?
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Directors Boyer?
Director Boyer:
Aye
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Darcy?
Director Darcy:
Yes.
Asst. Secretary Grincley:
Heidt?
Director Heidt:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Chairman Pederson?
Chairman Pederson:
Yes.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
RDA 94-1 adopted.
Counsel Newton:
The second item would be consideration of a motion accepting a plan for the encouragement to the
maximum extent feasible of the provision of the dwellings suitable for the needs of families displaced
by the disaster or by redevelopment, rehabilitation or renewal activities and recommending its adoption
6101
by the City Council.
Director Heidt:
At what point do we amend the area?
Counsel Newton:
That would be when we get to the plans.
Director Heidt:
I'll make the motion. I can't remember everything you said.
Counsel Newton:
It's on the record.
Director Boyer:
I want to second it and perhaps we should explain what it means which is basically that those people who
might be displaced by redevelopment will have first priority to be taken care of. We're not going to put
anybody into the street. Is that correct?
Counsel Newton:
Yes.
Director Boyer,
We will find housing for people before we ask them to move.
Chairman Pederson:
51
Mrs. Grindey are you comfortable with that wording? Moved and seconded. Is there any further
discussion? Call the roll please.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Directors Boyer?
Director Boyer:
Aye.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Darcy?
Director Darcy:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Heidt?
Director Heidt:
Yes
Chairman Pederson:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Motion carried.
Counsel Newton:
The next action, Mr. Chairman, would be the adoption of Resolution 94-2 of the Agency finding that the
adoption of the Plan and related documents is exempt from your CEQA.
Director Boyer:
So moved.
Director Heidt:
52
Seconded.
Chairman Pederson:
Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Mrs. Grindey.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Directors Boyer?
Director Boyer:
Aye.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Darcy?
Director Darcy:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Heidt?
Director Heidt:
Yes
Chairman Pederson:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Motion carried.
Counsel Newton:
Mr. Chairman preliminary action to approving the resolution adopting the Plan would be for the Agency
to move the deletion of the exclusion of the College of the Canyons' property from the resolution.
Director Boyer:
So moved.
53
Director Darcy:
Seconded.
Chairman Pederson:
Any discussion? Mrs. Grindey.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Directors Boyer?
Director Boyer:
Aye.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Darcy?
Director Darcy:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindley:
Heidt?
Director Heidt:
Yes
Chairman Pederson;
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Motion carried.
Counsel Newton:
With that modification of the resolution it would be appropriate for the Agency to consider the resolution
of the legislative body of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency finding that the adoption, pardon me,
approving the Plan and recommending to the City Council adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
54
Director Heidt
Director Heidt:
So moved.
Director Darcy:
Seconded.
Chairman Pederson: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Mrs. Grindey.
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Directors Boyer?
Director Boyer:
Aye -
Asst. Secretary Griridey:
Darcy?
Director Darcy:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Heidt?
Director Heidt:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grincley:
Chairman Pederson:
Yes
Asst. Secretary Grindey:
Motion carried.
55
Carl Newton:
It would be appropriate at this time if there is no other business to come to the floor of the
Redevelopment Agency to adjourn the Redevelopment meeting.
Chairman Pederson:
Do I have a motion?
Director Darcy:
So moved.
Director Boyer:
Seconded.
Chairman Pederson:
Moved and seconded. Do we require a vote on this?
Counsel Newton:
No objections, so ordered.
Chainnan Pederson:
Hearing no objection, so ordered. There will be a very brief recess for us to get our heads back together.
Five, six or seven minutes.
�.Mvdebnsda
56