Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 2002-10-28 10-28-02 Seal Beach, California October 28, 2002 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:48 p.m. with Chairman Campbell calling the meeting to order. I ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Campbell Agencymembers Antos, Doane, Larson Absent: Agencymember Yost Agencymember Yost joined the Agency meeting at 6:49 p.m. Also present: Mr. Bahorski, Executive Director Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Danes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Chief Sellers, Police Department Ms. Yotsuya, Assistant City Manager Ms. Yeo, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA Larson moved, second agenda as presented. by Doane, to approve the order of the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Antos, None Yost Campbell, Doane, Larson I Motion carried Chairman Campbell requested that Agencymember Comments be added to the end of the agenda, to that the City Attorney advised that members of the Agency could make comments provided they are short. Agencymember Antos inquired if the public would have the opportunity to speak to the Agency items. Chairman Campbell agreed that they would. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Campbell declared Public Comments to be open. Mr. Jim Caviola, Seal Beach, said he had provided the members of the Agency a package on which he had spent considerable time, he enclosed a letter appraisal of the Zoeter site at no expense to the City with supporting documents, it appears that the property is worth somewhere around $7 million. Mr. Caviola stated that the property will definitely be sold, there is a loan against the property for $1.2 million that the tenant obtained, that is included within the packet, the letter itemizes how the sale of the Zoeter School, the return of the $3.2 million pump money, and forgiving of the $300,000 debt to the General Fund would reverse, even if the sale was for $6.5 million, that would net the City $600,000 cash, and that would also, on a continuing basis, put $300,000 into the General Fund in addition to the $600,000 which will increase as property taxes increase with sales, in that as people get older and Prop 13 people move on all of the properties which constitute fifty percent of Old Town at present is going to go to General Fund property tax. With regard to the Consultant Service item, Mr. Caviola stated the request to I 10-28-02 I spend $95,000 on appraisals makes no sense as he just gave the Agency a letter appraisal for free, there are a lot of appraisers in the community and they do not cost that much. Mr. Caviola said the Redevelopment Agency could definitely be closed down and divert that money to the General Fund. Ms. Joyce Parquet, 6th Street, referred to the Zoeter Master Lease and the three amendments thereto, stated the persons who have the loan against the property have been in the limited partnership since the beginning, they put money in to develop the project so they will definitely want to purchase the property. Ms. Karen Tarascio, Welcome Lane, mentioned that she had mailed a letter to the Manager and Director of Development Services with regard to the topic of disbanding the Redevelopment Agency, as yet she has not had a response. She read her letter, noted that some weeks ago the Agency voted to explore the possibility of disbanding the Agency, there is evidently some enthusiasm for doing so within City Hall and the community at large, yet mentioned that some of the residents of the Trailer Park are on the rent subsidy program from the Redevelopment Agency, created by the Agency and City to ensure that low income homeowners would not be priced out of their homes when the title to the Park was transferred from Richard Hall to Linc Housing due to the ensuing rent increase. Her letter requested written answers to the questions of what impact to the rent subsidy program would result from the disbanding of the Agency, how will the homeowners in the Park who receive the rent subsidy be affected if disbanded, what if any changes specifically affecting the Trailer Park and its resident owners is foreseen if the Agency is disbanded, and asked if those questions could be answered at this meeting. Agencymember Yost said he would pose the questions when the item is considered. The Chairman noted that the mortgage assistance program is on the agenda, the questions ask the specific impacts to the Park if the Agency is disbanded. The Director of Development Services acknowledged receiving the letter, said staff is looking into the issues, they need to be discussed further with Keyser Marston, however their initial report indicates that the City would have the option to continue to take on those obligations, that would be a policy decision that would need to be made by the Agency and Council based upon further actions on the dissolution process which at this point is uncertain. The Chair explained that the inquiries are in the process of being looked into. Ms. Terascio said that is understood, however given that the entire purchase package entails Linc Housing and the bonds, her feeling is that it all works together and everyone should be at the table together, there is also the Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corporation, she would like a commitment of the Agency and Council to bring together the Housing Corporation, Linc, and the homeowners to see how this will be resolved, that may be better once decisions have been made rather than having discussions in this venue. She noted that these are the lives of people, a lead time would be necessary if something is going to occur where people are not going to be able to afford to stay in their homes after the years of time and energy that the homeowners put into accomplishing this supposed purchase and find at this point a critical component of the purchase is going to be taken away without the Park residents having an opportunity to be part of the dialog. There being no further comments, Chairman Campbell declared the Public Comment period to be closed. I I 10-28-02 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Doane moved, second by Yost, to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2002 regular meeting. AYES: NOES: Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Motion carried CONSULTANT SERVICES - DISSOLUTION OF AGENCY I The Development Services Director explained that staff has attempted to provide to the Agency what is estimated to be continuing costs if the Agency were to continue with the dissolution consideration process, as indicated in the staff report there are appraisals that need to be done of the property, one has been presented to the Agency by a member of the public at this meeting, there is a formal process that the City should go through to select an appropriate appraisal firm, that has been done at the direction of the Agency, there is'a proposal from Keyser Marston to do Phase II work that is necessary, and staff has tried to identify a range of costs but as yet have not been clearly defined for County legal counsel to look at the County accepting the debts of the Agency to retire the bonds based upon their receipt of the tax increment funds that would normally flow to the Agency, there is a necessity for review by bond counsel for both the Redevelopment Agency bonds that were refinanced in year 2000 and the Trailer Park bonds to ensure that any early payment into the bond retirement fund is in accordance with the bond documents, then there are additional costs outlined in the document for both City staff functions and for the City Attorney to provide additional services should the Agency determine to proceed. The Director pointed out that I there is a range in the costs which is dependent upon the appraisal firm that is selected if the determination is to proceed with this process, as outlined, the City received two proposals, one is $9,700 to appraise three different properties that the Agency either owns or has an option to purchase, up to a $32,850 amount for the same appraisal work, the other costs are the same throughout the work program. The Director said if the Agency determines to proceed, at this point the Agency does not have any unal10cated funds available to pay for the associated consultant costs therefore there would be need to accept a loan from the City assuming the Council determines to make such loan available to the Agency, resolutions have been prepared for that purpose. Agencymember Yost said if this process takes place it will be long and involved, require public hearings with notification to the public in general and especially those most affected like the Trailer Park where there are people receiving rental assistance, etc. The Director confirmed that to go through a formal closeout of the Riverfront Redevelopment Project Area there will be a number of public hearings that will need to be held, those hearings would be noticed to both owners and I' interested tenants of properties within the Project Area, therefore if the Agency determines to continue in this direction it may be well to hold a number of community workshops to explain some of the issues prior to that time, layout some of the anticipated impacts, and in this case there are ways where this cost could be covered but it would take an obligation of the Council to obligate future General Fund monies to continue the rent subsidy obligations, thus there is a separate decision process that the staff can not determine. Councilman Yost said he just wants to make certain that the public understands that this is not 10-28-0i I something that would take place over night, it is a long process with a number of public hearings. Councilman Doane made reference to one of the proposed resolutions which states that the Agency of the City of Seal Beach is accepting a loan from the City of Seal Beach, a loan meant to be repaid, and to that inquired about the process under which it would be repaid. The Director explained that the loan would be paid back at a five percent interest rate and based on the projections from the Finance Department it was determined that payments to the loan would go until year 2017. Councilman Antos mentioned that the report shows three properties to be appraised, asked if there is a legal reason to have an appraisal of the Police Department and City Yard, the City is not going to sell the Police Department or City Yard. The Director explained that staff is not in a position to make that determination, the understanding of the direction of the Agency was to seek appraisals of all Agency owned properties which includes the Police Department, Public works Yard, and Animal Shelter properties, once those appraisals are seen then a determination can be made as to eliminating certain properties from consideration in the dissolution, that is obviously an Agency determination to be made, yet until the potential valuations of those properties are known and the cost of what would have to be put into the bond debt early retirements it is not felt that those properties can be precluded until the numbers are known. Agencymember Yost mentioned that should the Agency be dissolved then those properties would fall outside the Agency or in some other entity therefore the value of those properties would need to be known so he would agree with that assessment. Agencymember Antos said it is his understanding that the City has already applied for a grant for the West End Pump Station, also that there is $3.2 million in Agency funds currently, therefore if there is $3.2 cash why is it necessary for the Agency to borrow money from the City that is not going to be paid back for fifteen years. The Executive Director explained that the West End Pump Station is bond proceeds specifically for the Pump Station, in that scenario the Agency would be borrowing money from the Pump Station to pay for the dissolution costs, as to the grant, it is for a portion of the West End Pump Station dealing with low flow diversions to the sanitary sewer during the summer months, it is not specifically for the pump station but a portion of the pump station. Agencymember Antos said he continues to believe that the Agency should be using cash from the Agency for this dissolution effort as opposed to burdening the General Fund with a loan, by doing so possibly the cost can be kept down in that the report shows a range of costs and possibly there would be an impetus to not spend the entire amount, also, the Agency gets tax increment funds each year of about $1 million, therefore whatever is borrowed from the cash on hand can be paid back from the tax increment. The Director explained that the reason the staff report shows that the loan can not be paid back until 2017 is based on current debt retirement service for bonds and the twenty percent required housing setaside, there will be no funds to pay anything back, the Agency is fully obligated until that point in time with existing debt and obligations. Chairman Campbell noted that the Agency receives approximately $1.38 million in tax increment and of that $750,000 is to service the existing debt which leaves about $88,000 per year in tax increment. She indicated her concern with lending money to an agency which increases its debt to dissolve the debt, concerned too with the amount of assistance for the Trailer Park from the General Fund, as well as the impact to the I I 10-28-02 remainder of the City because there would be money taken from the General Fund that could be going for other citywide uses, there are roads that need to be paved, there is the possibility of losing police officers, it does not make sense. Chairman Campbell said she did not want to pursue this at a possible cost of $95,000, the City can not afford this, when she reviewed the report and the loss to the City of $20 million versus the $4 million that would be forthcoming if the Agency were dissolved, the City will lose. She stated that one of the reasons that cities have redevelopment agencies is to receive the tax increment, the Agency tax increment now and it is proposed to turn it over to the County, the Agency will be out $88,000 per year in tax increment over and above the monies needed to service the debt, for a City that is looking for money this makes no sense. Chairman Campbell said she could not support a loan because that will put the Agency more in debt in order to dissolve the Agency, in her opinion things should remain as they are, she has no problem with the Redevelopment Agency, it merely collects the tax increment, an example of use is the Pump Station, it and other projects are viable uses, there are a lot of unanswered questions, this money is going to have to be made up from the General Fund and the City does not have it, that in turn will cut into other areas of the community, she does not want to see this City lose, does not want to use reserves, those are there to meet emergencies, if something were to happen to the pier is an example, pointing out that there are wants, needs, and emergencies. Chairman Campbell stated again that she could not support retention of the consultant services nor a loan from the City to the Agency, the dissolution has been looked into and from what has been seen thus far it makes no sense. Agencymember Antos expressed his disagreement, to him the only thing the Agency is doing is collecting tax increment monies to payoff debts and bonds the Agency has incurred, there is basically only one project remaining which is the Pump Station, and assuming that is done what the Agency will be doing for the next ten to twenty years is paying off the principal of the bonds, about the same amount in interest. He said there are properties that exist that the Agency is buying or could own that could be sold to pay down the bonds, and irrespective of whether the County receives some tax money if the Agency is dissolved as well as the School District, there is always State law that is taking $75,000 or thereabout per year from redevelopment money which is in turn requiring the Agency to take more money from the tax increment to pay the School District, and there is no money going into the General Fund of the City, losing $150,000 to $200,000 at todays value out of the General Fund. Agencymember Antos stated again that he would like to see the Agency use some of its existing money to complete the dissolution study without incurring more debt, at that point it will be known what can or can not be done or should or should not be done relative to the Redevelopment Agency. In a little more than a year the lessee of the property at the Zoeter site will be able to come forth and say they want to buy the property, at that point there will be a large infusion of cash, what will be done with that money, what will the property be sold for, it is supposed to be sold for fair market value through appraisals, there is nothing the City/Agency can do to stop the sale in 2004 when the lessee has the option to buy, therefore his feeling is that the Agency should use the funds it has at present, complete the appraisals and whatever else is necessary, have bond counsel determine when the bonds can be paid down without penalty, bring that information back so I I I 10-28-02 I that the Redevelopment Agency can determine what to do. Chairman Campbell offered that if the Zoeter property is sold that money could be used to payoff the bonds on that site, what is left over could be used to pay down other debts if there is such concern about the Police Department and Public Works Yard. She noted her continued concern with the statement about how much money the City would receive, if it were such a great deal all cities would be disbandoning their redevelopment agencies, but they are not, the fact is that the City gets more money from the tax increment than it would if the property were not in the Redevelopment Agency, the Agency receives about $1.38 million from the properties in the Agency Area, if they were not in the Project Area the City would receive $169,000 per year. Agencymember Antos countered that all of that money is going to pay debt service, to which Chairman Campbell corrected the statement, stating that it is $750,000 that is going to pay debt service, the remainder of the money can use used for other projects, this money gives the ability to do some of these projects, if there was no tax increment there would never be any of the projects. Agencymember Antos said there is $700,000 plus to payoff for bonds, $200,000 into housing, and $75,000 for schools, there is not much left. Chairman Campbell disagreed with the numbers. Agencymember Yost noted that in Seal Beach the Redevelopment Agency has actually been beneficial, the greenbelt, Trailer Park, Public Works Yard, Police Station, the Mary Wilson Library would not have transpired without the RDA, on the other hand one only needs to look south to see what redevelopment agencies can bring forth, an RDA can be destructive, the people are dependent upon a majority City Council to keep it from reeking major havoc, an example is that there have been attempts to put Main Street into a redevelopment zone, that has not been allowed to occur yet the Agency could be a major threat to the community of Seal Beach, therefore he can see making strides to disband the Agency on that basis, and he has no problem looking at that. Agencymember Yost said however that he also has concern with the affect that would have on the low to moderate income residents of the community, particularly the Trailer Park residents who are dependent upon the rent subsidy from the RDA, that is a major issue that must be considered in the process, the Pump Station has to be done as well, which is water quality and flood control, also, the State is planning to take more money from RDA's, there are bills pending, as mentioned, that will force agencies to put money into the schools, that will be the money that would otherwise be spent on the Pump Station or rent subsidy or other programs within the City or RDA. He said he would have no problem going forward with the appraisals, but he felt that the staff report reflected costs somewhat on the high side that may have been meant to discourage members of the Agency from going forward. The Executive Director explained that it is important to have MIA appraisals, in reading the Zoeter agreement it can be seen that there needs to be a very good appraiser, it should also be noted that the span between appraisal proposals is quite large from $97,000 to $32,000. Agencymember Yost also questioned the accuracy of the $12,500 amount that could be the City cost for County outside counsel research, the Director noted that that cost is uncertain at this point, this is merely to establish an anticipated budget. Chairman Campbell again expressed her concerns with going forward with this matter, she is aware that it has been abused in other cities but that is not Seal Beach, she could not see this City doing that, everyone loves this City, no one is going to I I / 10-28-02 turn Main Street into what Huntington Beach did. Her concern too is the impact and cost to the overall City and districts if the General Fund were to have to fund the obligations of the Agency, there is $88,000 tax increment per year that could be used for other things. There are some that have crusaded against redevelopment agencies for years, fear of eminent domain, yet the State, County, and federal government as well as the City all have the right of eminent domain, as does other agencies, the concerns expressed will not happen. Agencymember Yost offered that that may be true with this Council yet given the structure that gives a three vote majority the ability to do considerable destruction therefore if the Agency is left in place it could pose problems. ~UP Agencymember Yost moved to adopt proposed Resolution Number ~ 02-~entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT, NO. RDA03-0l), FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES IN PHASE II - DISSOLUTION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.tl By unanimous consent, full reading ~Of Resolution Number 02-~was waived. Agencymember Antos moved a substitute motion, to proceed yet have the costs paid from Redevelopment Agency funds and if there is a need at some point the Agency could approach the City to borrow money from the Pump Station. Agencymember Yost stated he would not second the motion unless the Pump Station monies are removed from the motion, it is important that the Pump Station be done as it relates to water quality flood control. The Executive Director cautioned that he did not believe that the bond monies can be used for any purpose other than what they were intended, when the bonds were refinanced it was specified to be for capital improvements which included the Mary Wilson Library and the West End Pump Station, it is not believed those monies can be used for the study. Chairman Campbell asked if there are sufficient Agency monies to cover the Pump Station and the $95,000 dissolution consultant study, in response the Executive Director stated again that all of the monies are committed to projects, yet the proposal is to use bond proceeds for the study that was unintended. The City Attorney confirmed that the money from the refinance was earmarked for specific purposes and that is so stated in the bond document, concurred with the Executive Director that those funds could not be used, the Agency does get the tax increment every year however ERAP has tapped those monies, also there is money that is not part of the setaside that is going to the rental subsidies for the Trailer park, it is believed that the maximum amount per year was $180,000. I I Mr. Jim Caviola, Seal Beach, with regard to the appraisal, said the Zoeter parcel deal was done in 1996, so all that is needed is the appraisal of one piece of property, he provided an appraisal to give the Agency an idea, one appraisal does not cost $95,000, an MIA appraisal will cost about $10,000, it could actually be looked up on a computer, an appraisal of just one parcel of property is all that is needed, and that has been done, there is no need to have people running around and spending more money. Mr. Caviola declared the Agency debt is obscene, Bridgeport, Riverbeach and the property tax for Zoeter does not go into the General Fund, the property tax of none of those parcels goes to the General Fund to fix the roads in this community, he does not believe that those people realize that their taxes are going to pay a minimum payment on a debt, the Agency is a separate bank account where those monies can not be spent outside of the I 10-28-02 I redevelopment area and that is at the expense of the General Fund, the initial report showed that the City is losing a minimum of $160,000 per year in the General Fund because of the Redevelopment Agency, the report also showed that the Agency would pay $5 million in interest, that is not going to fix the roads or pay police officers, educate children or subsidize rents. Again,.the Zoeter site will be sold, that was the deal in 1996, so the Agency only has to do an appraisal on one parcel of property, and if the amount is sufficient the debt is paid, then get the pump. Mr. Caviola said during the budget workshops there was never a budget for the Redevelopment Agency mentioned, it gave the appearance of impropriety, and asked that henceforth the meetings of the Agency be cab1ecast, no one in the community knows that the meeting has gone on since 6:30 p.m. with discussion of a $95,000 loan from the General Fund to the Redevelopment Agency, yet the Agency and Council are the same people, the Agency is a monster, a credit card, a person buys the Trailer Park for $3 million then sues the Agency for not doing its job, the person is then given a $4.5 million profit, and Linc Housing ends up with the Park. Mr. Caviola concluded by saying one appraisal, one property, he gave it to the Agency for free, he analyzed the report and the appraisal together, there is no need to spend $95,000. Ms. Reva Olson, Seal Beach, said one of the main reasons she does not like redevelopment agencies is that real estate tax dollars are placed in the Agency, the public has no knowledge of that, the meetings are not televised, and clarified that it was the people who fought for the greenbelt, the Agency did the people no favors, the only thing the Agency has done is run up debt, it will be the taxpayers that will have to pay it back, it is known too that there are people in this City that do not care about the City, just taking the taxpayers dollars, it is up to the Agency and Council to take care of the taxpayers. Ms. Joyce parque, 6th Street, mentioned that every year the Agency must put aside twenty percent of the tax increment money for low and moderate income, recalled having read the agendas for 1119 Ocean Avenue, for years nothing was done with the low and moderate income monies so there was a fine imposed of $660,000 for doing nothing for low income, asked where the low income housing is going to go each year while there is a Redevelopment Agency, can it go on the tennis court site, at Boeing, the rumor is that it may go in near Bridgport, that housing is not just for seniors it is for families. Ms. parque claimed that an MIA appraiser can be negotiated with, anything in real estate is negotiable, announced to the realtors that the City is buying signs to place throughout the town so that realtors can not put their open house signs up. She recalled hearing that there was no rent subsidy until the purchase of the Trailer Park from Richard Hall, now the Agency is in the hole, also, when the pier went down the taxpayers raised the money to rebuild, same with the police substation, the pool, when the people of this town want to raise money they will do it, the Agency did not do those things, and concluded by asking that the people be informed as to where the low and moderate income housing is going. Mr. Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, expressed his opinion that the time for redevelopment agencies has come and gone, they do more harm than good, if they can be disbanded that is good, and suggested that Mr. Caviola be listened to with regard to the dollar amount for an appraisal. Ms. Karen Tarascio, Trailer Park, was critical of the Agency having paid $660,000 in penalties as a result of not having used the low and moderate income setaside monies in a timely manner. She stated that redevelopment agencies are meant to eliminate I I 10-28-02 blight, and provided pictures of some of the household conditions in the Trailer Park that would certainly qualify as blight, the penalty monies could have been used to improve those living conditions. Chairman Campbell explained that it was not a matter of fixing up those homes, that is a different program, it was a matter of providing low to moderate income housing, what would qualify for a large amount of low/mod housing are the units in Leisure World, they would qualify dollar wise but the money can not be used because the law is written so that every time new housing is created so much low to mod also must be created, yet Leisure World housing is an existing stock, it is the bureaucratic rules that the City gets caught up in, the penalty was paid because there was no place to spend the money, it needed to be new housing, it could not be used to rehab. Ms. Torascio asked if it is not so that there is now a lesser number of low/moderate units in the Park. The Chair explained that initially it was one hundred twenty-five units, then the requirement was twenty percent of the one hundred twenty-five units, which meant that there only needed to be one hundred five low to moderate units, that was a requirement of the bonds. I It was pointed out that there was no second to either the primary motion or the substitute motions. ^I~gencyme~~ Yost restated his motion to adopt Resolution ~Number 02~. Agencymember Antos seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ~. Yost moved, second by Antos, to adopt Resolution Number 02~1" entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ACCEPTING A LOAN FROM THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,000." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 02~w~waived. AYES: Antos, Yost NOES: Campbell, Doane, Larson Antos, Yost Campbell, Doane, Larson Motion failed I Motion failed MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROCEDURES The Director of Development Services presented the staff report, explained that these are the guidelines to implement the Mortgage Assistance program that the Agency approved as part of the five year program for use of the housing setaside funds, a first time homebuyer program, there are the necessary agreements, forms, and grant deed documents to implement that program, the Agency previously approved similar documents for owner occupied rehabilitation loan and grant programs, the one program still to come is the renter assistance for rehab and replacement of units within the Trailer Park, as indicated in the staff report there are certain State law changes that required staff to relook at those documents, this program is anticipated to come to the Agency after the first of the year. He confirmed that this is a citywide program. I Yost moved, second by Doane, to receive and file the Mortgage Assistance Program Procedures for the City of Seal Beach, establishing program procedures to assist low to moderate- income persons and families to purchase a first time home in the City of Seal Beach. 10-28-02 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost None Antos Motion carried I AGENCY COMMENTS Agencymember Antos said from his observation it appears that the majority of the Agency has no interest in moving forward with dissolution, that is too bad. Agencymember Yost inquired if the Agency could move forward with dissolution of the Surfside Project Area as it is understood it had very little money and has been sitting idle, also if that can be done independently from the Riverfront Project Area. The Executive Director offered that that could be presented possibly in January. Agencymember Yost noted possibly the Riverfront Project Area can be dissolved eventually in that there is only one majority vote away from doing so. Chairman Campbell recalled that Agencymember Doane had pointed out that there are some small homes remaining in the Colony that may want to take advantage of that Agency project Area. Chairman Campbell pointed out that redevelopment is a complicated issue, recent letters to the local newspaper have made it clear that there are people that do not understand redevelopment, acknowledged that some cities have abused it but it is not felt that Seal Beach has, therefore this City should not be compared to redevelopment in other cities. Chairman Campbell noted that the Agency has been accused of giving away tax increment public monies with regard to the Trailer Park transaction, as background she pointed-out that the Trailer Park residents were faced with a new landlord/owner who tried to raise the rents and instituted rules and regulations that were designed to make the residents move from the Park, this Trailer Park is unique in that people have built houses around their trailers, therefore hitching up ones trailer and moving it out is not an option, the new Park owner did not care that people had mortgages on their homes, he had plans to level the property and move in manufactured housing, the City even knew from where and whom he was going to obtain the manufactured housing and the rents he was going to charge, this would have been similar to what he did at Treasure Island in Laguna Beach. She noted that the people in the Park were faced with complete financial ruin, the residents organized and sought the help of a non-profit company to buy the Park from the owner and manage it, the City floated a $6.5 million bond issue to assist in the purchase of the Park, the bonds now being paid by the residents through their rent monies for thirty years, there was no taxpayer money, the City also advanced them $1 million as a bridge loan to be repaid to the City by the State through the Mobile Park Resident Owners program, MPROP, she and the then Interim City Manager went to Sacramento to appear before the Committee to request the loan, it was granted, one of the members of the Committee expressed his pleasure that the Park purchase was taking place, and that he was able to vote in favor of the MPROP loan as he was part of drafting the original Covenants for the Park, however said that the Covenants were fine when written but there would be uncertainty if they would be valid at this point in time. She noted that the payment of the loan will be forthcoming from the State to the City sometime this year or next to cover the advance to the Park then repaid to the State by the Park residents over a period of thirty years. Chairman Campbell noted too that the Agency did pay $900,000 in closing costs which was a legitimate low to moderate housing expense, all of the transaction was bonds and a loan, all to be paid back by the Trailer Park I I 10-28-02 residents, not the City or the Agency, the only funds spent were the closing costs which the Park did not have, those costs could not be added to the bond amount as the $6.5 bond issue was all that the Park residents could collectively qualify for, neither the City or the Agency paid Richard Hall any money, and noted that after all that the Park residents have been through if anyone begrudges the Agency assuming the closing costs that would be too bad. Chairman Campbell said one of the letters accused the Agency of ineptly managing real estate in the Trailer Park, to that she stated that the City has not and does not manage the park; it'is not "the City's to manage. Another letter claimed that the Agency should be investigated, the question is for what, the Agency has not broken any laws or done anything questionable, it is audited annually, another comment was that tax increment is taxpayer dollars that are given away without voter scrutiny, question is what has been given away and to whom, neither the City or Agency gives anything away, all of the expenditures of funds for the Police Station, Public Works Yard, the right-of-way, Zoeter Place, Mary Wilson Library that has taken place over many years are voted on at public meetings. When Los Alamitos determined to sell the Zoeter School site there was a resident outcry from Old Town and the Hill, they wanted the City to purchase the site, also, people should not complain that the Agency meetings are not televised because when something is approved it also goes through the Council whose meetings are televised. She mentioned that one writer accused the Agency of cheating the Seal Beach taxpayers, question is how, where, and when, there is no substance to the accusations, another writer comment accused the Agency/ Council of doing things in secret, the response was that nothing in this town is secret. The Chairman recalled requesting at the last meeting a definition of a slush fund, the definition by the respondent was wrong, a slush fund has nothing to do with redevelopment, just because one does not like what redevelopment agencies have done in other cities gives no one the right to accuse the Agency/Council of criminal activity. Another issue was eminent domain, and as explained earlier it is not only the Agency that has that power, the City, County, State, federal, and various agencies all have that power. Chairman Campbell said it appears that some people think that if the Agency is dissolved there will no longer be the need for low/moderate income housing, that is wrong, it is a State mandate, at one point someone stated that this community almost got Section 8 housing, to that it was stated with almost certainty that it is already here, it is just not known where as the people who qualify under that program are just good neighbors. Eminent domain fears go back to the 1980's when there was talk of intensification of Main Street where they might have taken some property for parking, that never happened, is the Agency out of control, . the answer is no. There have been comments alleging that Agency money is going to bond traders in New York, not true, it is going to payoff the bonds. The Chairman expressed her opinion that because of fear of redevelopment and eminent domain a number of people are up~et and have made unfounded accusations, she did not feel that people understand what has been done, also, if things had not been done as they were it is felt that the Park residents would no longer be there as Mr. Hall wanted to do what he had done in Laguna Beach. She invited anyone having questions to contract the members of the Agency to seek facts before making accusations. I I I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Agency, to I I I 10-28-02 I 11-25-02 I 12-23-02 I 1-27-03 adjourn the meeting at 7:56 p.m., the next meeting likely not until January, 2003. f.~~Jr;~ Seal Beach, California November 25, 2002 The Redevelopment Agency regular meeting was canceled by action of the City Council. Seal Beach, California December 23, 2002 The Redevelopment Agency regular meeting was canceled by action of th City Council. Seal Beach, California January 27, 2003 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:52 p.m. with Chairman Campbell calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Campbell Agencymembers Antos, Larson Absent: Agencymembers Doane, Yost Agencymember Yost arrived at 7:18 p.m. Larson moved, second by Antos, to excuse the absence of Agencymember Doane from this meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Antos, Campbell, Larson None Doane, Yost Motion carried