RA1980/06/1080 -45
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JUNE 10, 1980, 1:00 P.M.
Council Chamber
Anaheim City Hall
PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0, Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
Chairman Seymour called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
to order at 1 :25 P.M.
MINUTES Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of
$724,391,63, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
161.112: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATION - SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS In accord-
ance with recommendations by the Executive Director, Mr. Bay offered Resolution
No. ARA80 -18 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, ARA80 -18 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AUTHORIZING ROBERT G. LYONS TO ACT FOR THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN
CONNECTION WITH SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS,
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA80 -18 duly passed and adopted.
161.107: AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. D80-2 - DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE: In
accordance with recommendations by the Executive Director, Mrs, Kaywood offered
Resolution No. ARA80 -19 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -19 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR DEMOLITION AND CLEARANCE OF CERTAIN AGENCY PROPERTIES. (Contract
No.D80 -2) (Luther Kelly Demolition, $14,300; 117 N. Santa Fe Street, 118 and
124 N. Olive Street, 501 E. Lincoln Avenue, 118 N. Santa Fe Street, 603 E.
Lincoln Avenue (except residence), 113 W. Chartres Street and 211 N. Claudina
Street)
80 -46
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 10 1980 1:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA80 -19 duly passed and adopted.
161.107: FINAL ACCEPTANCE, _PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NO D80 -3 SFC
In accordance with the certificate filed by the Executive Director, Mr. Bay
offered Resolution No. ARA80 -20 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -20 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A WORK OF IMPROVE-
MENT. CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY PARKING LOT, W /S /O CLAUDINA STREET, N/0 LINCOLN
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. D80 -3 SFC. (Hardy and Harper Inc.;
119 -121, 123, 127 and 129 -131 East Lincoln Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA80-20 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, Mr. Overholt moved to recess to 3:00 P.M. for public hearing on the pro-
posed 1980 -81 Budget. (1:29 P.M,) Mr. Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED,
AFTER RECESS Chairman Seymour reconvened the Redevelopment Agency for a joint
meeting with the City Council. (5:10 P.M.)
Community Development Mr. Talley noted that the Community Development Department's
budget was on Pages C103 through C109 (Community Development, Neighborhood
Preservation and Economic Development) and Pages 0299 through C311 (Redevelop-
ment, Redevelopment Administration, Planning, Engineering and Design, Real
Estate Acquisition and Disposition, Property Management, Relocation, Project
Improvements, Marketing and Development, Redevelopment Contract Obligations,
Housing Assistance) Position Control Pages E21 and E22.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, referred first to
Page C299 of the budget, Control Center 59, Redevelopment, and gave an overview
and update of the development and Neighborhood Preservation Program. He antic-
ipated in the coming year that they would complete the Phase I improvements
now under way in the downtown area and also of great significance, they antic-
ipated completing the design, bidding and construction of the downtown storm
drain. A substantial portion of the proceeds from the bond issue would be
80 -47
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 10 1980 1:00 P.M.
used for that purpose. They also expected to begin construction on part of
Phase II of the public improvements, the portion easterly of Anaheim Boule-
vard, as well as construction on a number of private developments. One of
the key things was they had been building improvements in the westerly
portion of the project to get far enough ahead, so that the private devel-
opers could now come in and build comfortably with the assurance that the
transportation facility was there to serve them.
Equally important was the beginning of the Neighborhood Preservation Pro-
gram which they considered the second phase of downtown Project Alpha.
The redirection in 1976 indicated the importance of neighborhood preserva-
tion and it was their expectation during the coming year that they would
be working extensively in developing relationship with neighborhoods and
neighborhood groups and Council at a pace those neighborhoods could
readily absorb. They anticipated funds from CHFA, as well as use tax
increment funds. They would be working not only with Redevelopment, but
also other Community Development activities. Their anticipation, since
downtowm Project Alpha was a part of the central target area for Block
Grant and there was overlapping, was that they would be using both regularly.
They were also looking into the possibility of mortgaged back financing.
That particular financing did not flow directly into the Agency revenues,
nor was it expended directly by the Agency, but utilized by lenders in
supporting private rehabilitation activities. It would require a feasibility
study and they would be talking to the Agency and Council at considerable
length before going forward.
Staff was down two positions for the coming year. They had retained their
staffing level since 1976 when they began their expanding activity and
expected to hold to it. They would now be going into a one -to -one rela-
tionship this year in the Neighborhood Preservation Program which was a
substantially new and different role for them.
Mr. Priest then clarified questions posed by the Council relative to the
time frame for either start up and /or completion of projects under way in
the downtown area, i.e., theWilldan Building; transition road, Olive to
Lincoln and full grade separation; Harbor Boulevard -- Broadway to Cypress,
etc. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that SB1972 would, in
fact, exempt Redevelopment from the effects of Proposition 4 and that in
their budget (Page C299), they sought to show the most conservative picture.
He also clarified for Councilman Overholt that they did have an ongoing
program to keep people informed of the progress of their program.
Housing Authority - -Page C309 Control Center 60 Mr. Priest gave a brief
overview of the Housing Authority budget and program, pointing out that
they applied for units whenever they became available and each time they
were awarded units, they must come back with an amended budget. The budget
for the forthcoming year of $6,142,034 would appear to be a substantial
increase over last year's budget due to a number of factors which he
explained.
He then reported they had substantial interest from developers in developing
additional housing in Anaheim, but their problem now and in the past was in
finding sites. One additional staff member had previously been authorized
whose particular specialty and function was to work with developers, staff,
etc., wherever he could in order to foster housing production.
80 -48
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 10 1980 1:00 P.M
Staff involvement would include the annual inspection of units, recertifi-
cation and renegotiation of leases. At regular intervals, each of the
tenants must be interviewed and recertified as to income and ability to
pay which was a sizable process. One of the key things they had to repre-
sent to those people living in the housing unit was not only a compassionate
hand, but also at the same time represent equity in terms of rents and
operations to the landlord. They had a very sensitive staff, and he
commended them as being one of the best.
Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, then explained for Councilman Roth that
their backlog of applications in the elderly category totalled approximately
300 and also 100 to 200 families. They had inquiry cards in the thousands
in both categories, and there were 12,000 households needing assistance in
Anaheim. They had never closed out applications since she had been with
the Agency. They decided to always keep them open and they would consider
them based upon preferences and priority.
Community Development Administration and Neighborhood Preservation - -Paae
C103. Control Center 61 : Neighborhood Preservation was a City program,
the initial seed money coming through Housing and CDBG activities with a
proposed budget slightly over $2 million. The thrust of the program was
rehabilitation underlayed with a housing contract and thus placed under the
Neighborhood Preservation Program although it would produce housing units.
They basically had 10 programs (see Page C105) and expected through those
programs to rehabilitate in excess of 390 units and acquire 15 parcels for
in -fill housing. Additionally they expected to provide housing counseling
to 600 residents. He reiterated they would also be working in Project
Alpha with their Neighborhood Preservation staff. Because of similarities
of functions, it did not seem prudent to acquire Redevelopment staff to
perform Neighborhood Preservation activities. Thus, they were going to be
working side by side with Redevelopment staff in the coming year. Staffing
would add four positions primarily due to the increased level of activity
in the rehabilitation program. He then reported extensively on the progress
of the Neighborhood Preservation Program and what they had accomplished.
He emphasized that the program was a personalized one, on a one -to -one basis,
with each owner, and not process oriented.
Mr. Priest pointed out that citizen participation was a key function of the
Community Block Grant Administration and if there was any single activity
which had grown more rapidly in the past year and expected to grow even
more so in the coming year, it was the increase in citizen participation
in that program.
Mayor Seymour referred to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
and stated that Mr. Priest's whole area of responsibility in his opinion,
next to providing public input in getting the community to involve itself
in the process, the second greatest priority was adequate audits to insure
that someone was not "ripping off" one or more of those programs. That
could be the greatest single threat to the work of the Department, bringing
the programs to a screeching halt. In that regard, he asked Mr. Priest to
describe for the Authority, Agency and Council what type of audit procedure own"
was being followed in order to insure that would not occur.
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 10 1980 1:00 P.M.
Mr. Priest then explained the present procedures followed to preclude the
area of concern expressed by the Mayor, as well as reviewing the Redevelop-
ment and Housing audits that took place.
At the conclusion of Mr. Priest's explanation, the Mayor stated anything
Mr. Priest should need to insure that the process was kept pure, they would
stand ready to provide.
Economic Development - -Page C107, Control Center 62 Mr. Priest stated that
Mr. Richard Darbo, Executive Director, AEDC, was present to answer any
questions relative to the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)
budget.
Councilman Roth asked that due to the fact that the City paid a substantial
amount of the cost, he requested periodic progress reports showing what the
Corporation had accomplished since their inception, and their plans in
order to keep the Council informed.
Mr. Priest stated that the AEDC did provide quarterly reports to him which
he would be happy to share with the Council. He then gave a brief overview
of the activities and in concluding stated that he would be happy to provide
the Council with the past reports of the Corporation as well.
The budget hearing was thereupon concluded with a budget work shop session
scheduled for June 13, 1980, at 10:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, Mrs. Kaywood moved to adjourn. Mr. Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNED: 6:07 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY