Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/04/25 - Minutes - Adjourned April 25, 1983 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Adjourned Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDI~R A adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base line Road on Monday, April 25, 1983- The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Jon D. Mikeis. Present were Councilmembers: Richard M. Dahl, Charles J. Buquet II, Phillip D. Schlosser, James C. Frost, and Mayor Jon D. Mikeis. Also present were: City Manager, Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney, Robert Dougherty; Bill Holley, Community Services Director. 2. C0~NCIL NlSIff.~ A. ~J~LO-ROO3CC~T~FACILITIESACT OF 1982. Staff report by Bill Holley, Community Services Director. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 provides an alternative method of financing public capital facilities and select public services. Among the facilities which can be addressed by the "Act" are parks and recreation facilities, when approved by 2/3 of the electorate. Mr. Holley presented the staff report. He introduced: Bill Fieldman, a specialist in municipal funding. John Brown, the City's RDA legal counsel and a specialist in the legalities of bonding. Ron Paige, Recreation Systems, a park design firm with experience in successful park bonding. Mr. Holley presented the Park Advisory Committee's priority recommendations which were: Bring forth to the electorate a ballot measure to establish a Community Facilities District for the acquisition and/or development of parkland. 2. That the CFD be authorized to issue and sell bonds, revenues from which will be used for acquisition and/or development of parkland. That two separate and distinct zones be established. Zone 1 encompassing the entire City to fund acquisition only of a portion of Central Park. Zone 2 encompassing that residential portion of the City west of Deer Creek to fund only the development of items 2 through 6 on the following priority list: Central Park (to include acquisition only of a portion of the property, depending on dollar amount remaining after development of other priority items). b. Full development of Heritage Park. c. Development of Red Hill Basin Park (part of this is now known as Vineyard Park) (1) City Council Minutes April 25, 1983 Page 2 d. Arrow Park e. Alta Loma Basin Park f. Phase II of the Cucamonga Creek Trail System 4. That the total dollar amount for the bond payback for all items (1 through 6) on the priority list, stay within the range of $35-$45 annually per residential dwelling. And further, that approximately 2/3 of the annual dollar amount be spent for projects within Zone 2. Mayor Mikeis opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing Council were: Joe Diiorio stated as a concerned citizen the object of providing parks is what we should be doing. Victoria would certainly participate on an equitable basis, but it is basically already paying for 5-1/2 acres of park per 1000 population. He felt some consideration should be given to either that land or some exclusion of Victoria to the overall matter. Mr. DiIorio stated another concern of his was in the area East of Haven. The Mello-Roos Bill does tend to resolve a lot of problems, and it may help in our resolution of fire and police district financial problems; also possibly Route 30 and Day Creek. He w~nted to know how these would all fit together so there aren't conflicting priorities between the various uses of the same law. Is it best to include them into one massive type facility or can they be issued sequen~ially without being lost in ranking of priority. Mayor MikeIs responded to the second point by stating that if we put a massive district together including different issues, it might be overwhelming. Mr. Wasserman said one of the reasons we need financial assistance is to identify the alternatives that are available for various types of assessment. These are policy questions that need to be decided by Council after looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each. We are not prepared to answer these things at this stage. Mimi Rahl, Lewis Homes, asked how much of the Deer Creek land would they be able to acquire with the $35-$45? Mr. Holley responded that they were not able to answer this at this time. They needed to find what the cost of Zone I would be, then what was left from Zone I would go toward Zone II. Sharon Romero expressed that industrial employees do get together for company picnics, etc.; therefore, they too would be using City parks. John Brown responded to questions regarding the tax by stating this was a special tax. Therefore, it is unlike the special assessment. Both are collected on the tax bill. As a voter approved special tax, this is a special tax simply collected on the tax bill in the same way other ad valorem taxes that we all pay in connection with our annual property tax bill. With question to sale, delinquency, and foreclosure, it's simply treated the same way as other ad valorem property tax which is different from a lien against real property which we are familiar with in the special assessment area. Pam Henry stated that there was a basic feeling that this should be kept under $4.00 per month. The decision to separate Deer Creek from the rest was because many of the people felt that the time wasn't right for a major city park, and it would be harder to sell. They were looking for the parks that would satisfy the overall needs of the community. Basically, those that provide sport fields were considered. Arrow Park was considered because there wasn't any other park within that area. She also stated that they wanted Council to look into the industrial and commercial areas since there was some inclusion of that area, but not sure how much. City Council Minutes April 25, 1983 Page 3 There being no further public input, Mayor Mikels closed the public hearing. Mayor Mikels asked Council if they felt this was a viable mechanism with which to address the shortage of parks in the City? Is there any opposition or drawbacks in using the Mello-Roos for acquiring parks? Mr. Schlosser wondered when would be the most appropriate time to have an election. He felt that one general district would be the best since it was a benefit for all the citizens. He felt this appeared to be a good way to go to acquire parks. Mr. Frost stated it was viable enough to proceed with finding out more about. Mr. Buquet expressed some concern about possible conflict with Measure W which would appear on the November ballot. Flood control is a public safety factor, but parks might not mean enough to people to invest $35.00 per year. He did feel this was the best way to go, but was uncomfortable with the different zones. One of the problems with Measure W was the confusion amongst the voters as to what the specifics of the program were and what the actual benefits would be to them specifically. He wondered what the legal aspects of this were since it appeared to be like a dual taxation where there was an overlay of an overlay as far as the two zones. Mr. Brown said the law does address this very thing. He felt the legislation was drafted in such a way as to respond to the requirements of Article 13A and 13B which are the Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 requirements. its a special tax to be approved by 2/3 of the qualified electorate to be for a special purpose. This falls within the Proposition 13 kind of tax. It was clearly the intent of Proposition 13 that the voters could approve more than one type of special tax. This was a benefit assessment act. That is to say clearly that fairness and equality is required in the apportionment of the charges that is decided upon, but it is not an Act like a Special Assessment Act or the police and fire benefit assessment acts that require direct apportion in relation to direct benefit. Its more nearly like the old fashioned obligation bonds which were an ad valorem tax based on assessed value. Mr. Dahl stated that the general funds were not in the best condition and federal grants were not adequate which leaves only one mechanism, the Mello- Roos. A 2/3 vote means we much have the support of the public, and we must have it from the very beginning. He felt if we are interested in moving ahead, then we should set up a committee to research this. Mayor Mikels felt the Act was the best measure to bring additional park development to the City since the general fund cannot support it. He concurred with the concept of the two districts. Pam Henry explained the PAC came up with the priority list by taking into consideration first the locations and what possible other parks that were around. Use was also taken into consideration. Heritage Park best encompasses all types of park use. The need for sports fields was also considered. Expansion of Red Hill was given high priority because it could satisfy needs of both youth and adult sports. Because it is owned by a public entity and some of the facility and parking is already there, the cost would be less. Ranking of priority does not mean that Heritage Park was the most important. All the parks have a high prioity. In scaling down the list to a predetermined bottom dollar figure would not mean eliminating a park, but perhaps eliminating phases of all the parks. Listing in a priority does not represent that one park outranks the others. Mayor Mikels summarized that Council concurred in looking at the Mello-Roos Act and to get some permanent cost figures. We need to know what it is going to cost in staff time and election costs. Need to know what the process and City Council Minutes April 25, 1983 Page 4 the timing should be. Need clarification of the two district concept. Need the $35 assessment refined so we know what we are getting. The issue will require combined community effort. Mr. Holley stated we should be getting preliminary design proposals on each park in order to know what it would cost. Mr. Buquet stated that he would like to see a "Citizens for Parks" group come forward. He felt there should be a special election, but that timing was important. Mayor Mikels asked Council if they wanted to go further and look at other sites? Mr. Frost responded that the Committee could look into that. Mr. Dahl concurred that more of the questions could be answered by a Committee. Mayor Mikels appointed Councilmen Dahl and Frost to a Parks Advisory Subcommittee. Council concurred. Mr. Dahl stated he did not want this to go over "x" dollars. He wanted the citizens to take the ball. Mr. Frost stated that all who worked on the Zone ~ know that you can spend as much tine as you want on this type of issue. Specific questions would be better answered in a legal session following the meeting. Council has made a commitment to proceed with the development of parks unless the citizens don't wish to pay for them. However, even without the vote, Council will proceed the best they can. Council should not set another date until the Subcommittee has some information together. 3 - ADJO~4EIff Motion: Moved by Schlosser, seconded by Dahl to adjourn the meeting to a closed session. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Authelet Deputy City Clerk