Loading...
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