Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985/05/17 - Minutes - Adjourned May 17, 1985 CITY OF RANClIO CUCAHONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adiourned Meetini 1. CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met on Friday, May 17, 1985 in Alta Loma High School Auditorium, 8880 Base Line Road. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikels, who an- nounced that this was the time and placed fixed for the public hearing relating to the formation of the assessment district and levy of assessments for costs of maintenance and improvements for the Park & Recreation Improvement District, Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks. Present were Councilmembers: Pamela J. Wright, Charles J. Buquet II, Richard M. Dahl, Jeffrey King, and Mayor Jon D. MikeIs. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet; Community Services Director, Bill Holley; Legal Counsel, MacKenzie Brown; Consultants were Bill Stookey, Wildan & Associates, and Bill Fieldman, of Fieldman & Rolapp. 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. FORMATION OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR COST OF IM- PROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS) Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, stn, m~rized the purpose, scope, and order of the Procedure for the public hearing. Mr. Wasserman then introduced MacKenzie Brown, legal counsel; Bill Stookey, assessment engineer; and Bill Fieldman, bond counsel. He also stated that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Park Development Commissions would make a presentation. MacKenzie Brown explained the purpose, scope, and order of procedure for the public hearing; and went over the general nature, location and boundaries of the assessment district, and the extent and maintenance of the proposed works of improvement. He also presented and summarized the Report pursuant to the Provisions of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The meeting was then turned over to Bill Stookey, the project engineer from Wildan & Associates. Mr. Stookey explained the method and formula of the assessment spread. He stated that they tried to spread the costs according to the benefits received. He also pointed out that this District did not include the eastern portion of the City because they had obligations for parks in that area which were greater than what was being considered tonight. Mr. Stookey stated that we were dealing with 18,328 parcels of land which will benefit from the assessment. He also pointed out that in developing the program for benefit of the assessments, the records from the County Assessor's office were used. Parks provide benefit to both the residential uses and the industrial/commercial uses within the boundaries of the District; therefore, both industrial and commercial uses have been included in the District. They feel that when the parks are developed, the City will be a better place to live; thus benefiting the industrial and commercial businesses. Mr. Stookey stated that properties benefit from what they can be used for, not necessarily what they are being used for. Therefore, all vacant properties have been assessed within the District boundary. (~) City Council Minutes May 17, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Stookey went on further to state that every residential unit will receive an actual benefit and have been assessed an equal amount of $34.65 per year. The acreage of the City, which would include vacant land, industrial, commer- cial, etc. would also be paying $34.65 per acre for those years. One and a half acres or smaller with one house is assessed as a single family house. If it is larger than one acre and only has one house, then it is assessed on the acreage basis, rather than the house basis. Mr. Stookey also pointed out that there are a number of exempt properties which are ones that are already exempt by class taxing methods such as schools, churches, utility and power rights-of-way. Maintenance will not be considered until after the parks have been completed. As time passes and further development occurs to spread the costs among a broader base, thus reducing each individual's share. As the debt cost lowers, the maintenance costs will begin. This difference could be used to maintain the parks. Bill Fieldman of Fieldman & Rolapp, financial consultant, reported that financing will be by the sale of bonds. He pointed out the bond market is very strong right now. It is stronger now then it has been all year. The meeting was turned over to Pam Henry, Chairman of the Park Development Com- mission, who presented slides showing the proposed areas for park development in the community. Pete Pitassi, Vice Chairman of the Park Development Commission, also presented slides of what the proposed parks would like. He then read into the record the Resolution as adopted by the Park Development Commission. RESOLUTION OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ENDORSING THE CREATION OF THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DIS- TRICT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF HERIT~E AND RED RILL COMMUNITY PARKS AND URGING THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION AT THEIR SPECIAL MEETING MAY 17, 1985 WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has an adopted General Plan which contains a Park and Recreation Eloment; and WHEREAS, Heritage and Red Hill Commuinity Parks are major elements of that plan designed to provide key recreational opportunities for the citizens of the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, after extensive research by the Park Development Commission on financing alternatives for park development, the formation of the Park and Rec- reation Improvement District is the only assured method of reaching full devel- opment of Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks in the foreseeable future. NO~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: The Park Development Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga supports forma- tion of the Park and Recreation Improvement District for Heritage and Red Hill Community Parks and recommends and requests Councll passage of Resolutions of District implementation at the special City Council meeting of May 17, 1985. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 1 985. AYES: Henry, Pitassi, Riggs, Mitchell NOES: None ABSENT: Punter The meeting was then turned over to MacKenzie Brown, legal counsel, who presen- ted the assessment of the protests received. As of 4:30 p.m. on May 17, 1985, the total protests received were .8Z which was less than lZ. THis represents approximately 180 parcels. City Council Minutes May 17, 1985 Page 3 Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public heari&g to those persons who wish to speak in opposition to the following three areas: (1) boundaries of the as- sessment district; (2) extent of works sessment spread. of improvement; and (3) method of as- Addressing Council were: John McClary, 8951 Orange Street Kenneth Eakins, 8166 LaSenda Gary Sanzarn, 8181 LaSenda Gary Nelson, 7548 Perlite Ct. Don McGlasson, 6840 Topaz Rd. Donna Whiting, 9666 San Bernardino Rd. Henry Heidon, 9089 Handarin John C. Book, 5830 Buckthorn Jan Waska, 5407 Hermosa Joseph Dobsen, 8694 Hickory, Fontana Jack Williams, 9800 Base Line Rd. George Varrington, 7906 Nontara Joyce Genre1, 8640 Quebrada Ernest Hughes, 8300 Bella Vista Mrs. Philip McNulty, 7564 Lion Barbara Gakle, 9630 San Bernardino Rd. David Flocker, 6674 East Avenue Roy Artley, 8567 Hawthorne Barbara Grimley, 5360 Hermosa Thomas Cario, 7052 Napa William Morse, 6420 Hellman Ella McElroy, 7524 Zircon L. Troy Hall, 7780 Klusman Bob Hibble, 8773 Balsa Alice Flocker, 6226 Topaz Catherine Banker, 5851 Fanerald W.E. Clayton, 8488 Arrow Highway William Rees, 4888 Archibald James Langdon, 9253 Golden John DeMarie, 9160 Old Ranch Road L.M. Johnston, 8255 Burgundy Joseph Letson. 7055 Lion Peter Lockie, 7354 Via Serena Bruce Zwissler, 7431 Marine J.W. Christensen, 4948 Klusman Darlene Tare, 9245 Carrari Ct. There being no further response, Hayor called a recess at 9:45 p.m. The meeting of the Council present. Mayor Mikels opened the meeting for public speak in favor of the proceedings: Addressing Council were: Majorie Stannn, 6767 Amethyst Jim Banks, 8188 Red Hill Country Club Dr. Sandra Oerley, 5652 Fanerald Dave Barker, 9003 Citation Debbie Briones, 10456 Wilson Cyndi Davis, 8037 Thoroughbred Jennifer Roger, 4650 Beryl Nancy Kettle, 9588 Wilson James Barton, 8409 Utica Suzanne Chitiea, 7943 Appaloosa Ct. Sharon Romero, 8242 Rosebud Mikels closed the public hearing and reconvened at 10:15 with all members hearing to anyone who wished to City Council Minutes May 17, 1985 Page 4 Jim Frost, 8609 Calls Feliz Wendy Crawford, 9315 Hillside Christins Benoit, 5353 Carnelian Jeff Sceranka, 6211 Phillips Way John Rose, 7072 Jasper Thomas Moliuaro, 8428 Camellia Ct. Sandra Saul, 5041 Via Verde Guy Byersdorf, 9051Appaloosa Ct. Debbie Eggleston, 7165 Teak Way Paul Benoit, 5353 Carnelian Art Bertolina, 5770 Arabian Dr. Bruce Chitlea, 7943 Appaloosa Ct. Tim Beedie, 8425 Lemon John Holt, 5335 Carnelian Skip Davis, 8037 Thoroughbred Molly Mitchell, 9028 Carnelian Kay Matlock, 9479 Linden Don Perry, 9023 Appaloosa Ct. George Battiara, 6950 Cartilla Lowell Comes, 8772 Vivero Allen Kopperlid, 6068 Sard Toni LevyBolt, 8437 Caballero Gene Wiley, 9287 Persimmon Linda Yount, 8921 Camellia Ct. Bill 0campo, 9044 Hillside Kara Henry, 9013 Caballero There being no further response, Mayor Mikeis closed the public hearing. Mr. Wasserman announced that 152 lettars in opposition and 328 letters in favor were received. The protests totaled .9% from those who either lived or had Property in the area. Mr. Wasserman went over some questions which had been raised by those in oppo- sition as follows: 1. Length of Assessments and the maintenance period. Mr. Wasserman stated the length of assessment for the development of parks would be 20 years. Any main- tenance would have to be done by a public hearing process. 2. Why doesn't the entire City pay on this? Mr. Wassennan pointed out that Tetra Vista and Victoria will be planning parks for their communities and will be paying assessments in the amount of $150 to $250 per year for those parks. 3. kray are residents of mobilehome parks not assessed? Mr. Wasserman stated that residents of mobile home parks are not assessed since they usually do not own the land, but the owner of the park will be assessed by the size of the parcel. 4. Hhy are we using the sale of bonds for financing methods? Mr. Wasserman pointed out the $34,65 included interest. Rates on bonds are currently between 8-9%. 5. Why did the benefit assessment program not come before the citizens for a vote? Mr. Wasserman pointed out that at the time Proposition 13 was passed, benefit assessments were exempt from Proposition 13. The Legislature has re- cently declared parks a part of the benefit assessment process. 6. l~hat about future parks? Mr. Wasserman pointed that most of the parks are within the planned communities, and those that are not will be paid for through development fees in the future. City Council Minutes May 17, 1985 Page 5 7. What about compatibility with the neighborhood? Mr. Hasserman pointed out that if there are such problems, staff would like to made aware of it because there were things that could be done to alleviate those problems. 8. What has been done with the fees that have already been paid for parks? Mr. Wasserman pointed out that the park development fees have been used to pur- chase the park land that we already have. 9. What about vacant land. Why should it be assessed? Mr. Wasserman pointed out that as vacant land develops, its value increases. Council discussion: Councilman King stated he was primarily in favor of the assessment district. Re thought it was reasonable and made sense; we needed the parks now in order to provide a place for all the activites of the youth groups. Councilman Dahl stated he was really excited about our Community being given the opportunity to contribute to not only the recreational needs of today, but to a legacy for future generations. Since the cost is less than attending a movie, he could not believe it was not affordable to anyone who owns a home. He then read the following into the record: "The addition of these recreational improvements not only makes our community unique and a more desirable place in which to live, but will more than overshadow the cost with increases in every homeovner's property values. In our City we have over 15,000 participants in various sporting activities from soccer and baseball to equestrian and jogging. The average family has more than two children vho need safe areas in which to play. This program will of- fer playing fields, playgrounds, band concert stage, equestrian show arena, and a small lake to relax beside to enjoy nature or just feed the ducks. We wiII all be part of a recreational program designed for everyone touching all age groups, from the mother with a baby, to the senior citizen, from the Participant, to the spectator, from the sports-minded, to the music lover. Developer fees are being utilized to purchase these part sites before land costs becomes out of reach. Rowever, there is not enough to build the parks, and due to State law, this is the only way we have of funding our park improve- ments. Only a fev cents out of your property tax dollar can go for parks, and Federal grants are impossible to obtain. I urge all citizens to look upon this program as your investment, and join me to enthusiastically support this progam." Mayor MikeIs stated that the property tax rate in Rancho Cucamonga is less than 51 of the property tax bill. Re felt bond financing was the best way to go for such type financing. He was totally in support of the parks. Councilman Buquet stated he grey up in an area without parks -- in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated that although there was a lot of opposition, no one could come up vith a constructive alternative. He felt the Council should bite the bullet and proceed foryard. Councilwaman Wright stated that this was worked on by the citizens. Every per- son originally elected to the Council was in support of parks. Although she would really prefer to allow the voters vote their support, she felt there was a need. This was a good alternative, and she would be in support of MacKenzie Brokm, legal counsel, read the title of Resolution No. 85-152. RESOLUTION NO. 85-152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING AND DENYING PROTESTS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN A SPECIAL ASSESaNENT DISTRICT City Council Minutes May 17, 1985 Page 6 MOTION: Moved by King, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 85-152. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. FLacKenzie Brown, legal counsel, read the title of Resolution No. 85-153. RESOLUTION NO. 85-153 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS, FORMING AS- SESSMENT DISTRICT AND CONFIRMING DIagRAM AND ASSESSMENT MOTION: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Buquet to approve Resolution No. 85-153. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 3. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved unanimously 5-0. by Buquet, seconded by King to adjourn. Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Clerk