Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 - MINUTES - 6/9/1999 - STUDY SESSIONCITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 9, 1999 All Present 1. CLOSED SESSION - See Adjourned Meeting Agenda 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS: None 4. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: a) City Manager reported that the Tribal Council selected July 14 as date for joint meeting; and that perhaps the Cabinet meeting could be canceled or rescheduled. Consensus of the Council was to try to schedule Cabinet meeting for July 28. 5. CRA PROJECT AREA COMBINATION Economic Programs Manager reviewed handout (see attached) and stated that the individual project areas are not eliminated, rather an “umbrella” project area is created in which funds are consolidated and there is one accounting; that the County will continue to recognize the separate areas and submit taxes based on them; that there are not changes in boundaries; that all owners will be notified; that time extension and boundary changes are distinct from the consolidation; that the time extension will be an additional 10 years from date of current expiration for all but areas 9 and 10 which are already valid for 40 years. He added that theoretically all funds could be pooled for a single project, but that its not the intent. Councilmember Hodges: has concerns about “lumping” funds - taking from one area and giving to another is not what redevelopment is about; that some of those type of projects were done, and were done successful - this will make it easier to do. City Attorney explained how a new redevelopment area is established; that he was not aware of any area in California which has terminated; that expansion of an area is similar to creation of any area; and that redevelopment per se is a sensitive subject, i.e., with regard to eminent domain proceedings, which is why in most cases, residential areas are not included. He stated that most redevelopment areas, because of new development, experience funds for putting back into the areas, and that Palm Springs has been unique in that not being the case. 2. 2000 CENSUS See attached handout reviewed by Director of Planning & Building. No questions or comments. 3. NOVEMBER, 1999 BALLOT ISSUES Study Session 6-9-99, Page 2 Possible ballot questions: 1. Advisory: should the utility user tax be continued? 2. Advisory: should 50% of the tax levied go to public safety? 3. General Obligation Bond: $6.3+ million for SIREN 4. Charter Amendment - citizen initiative 5. Charter Amendment - Council initiative 6. Advisory: WWTP tertiary treatment City Attorney explained the concept of all Nos. 4-6 (see attached). With competing measures, the one with the most YES votes would prevail, if both received a majority of YES votes. Barnes: favored proceeding with all six on the ballot. Hodges: did not favor placing competing charter amendment; felt it would confuse the voters, and circumvents the initiative process; favors lifting the utility tax continuation sunset clause that was on the last ballot. Surprised about the SIREN proposal, felt it was “dropped” on the Council without prior discussion, was not aware of interest in replacing Fire Station 1; and that the tertiary treatment was not appropriate for the ballot, and the public would not know what it meant. Mayor: favors a “menu” of items - tiered or otherwise - and letting the community decide what it wants in the way of infrastructure City Attorney: too many choices, and the voters get confused and tend to vote NO on everything; if Council wants opinions, it should do a poll and hire a pollster. Reller-Spurgin: did not know anything about SIREN either, but recalled discussions as to condition of Fire Station 1 at the time the Council was considering what to do about the roll-up door. Barnes: if matters are not placed on ballot, Council has made decision; the alternate charter amendment will satisfy those in the community who are concerned about privatizing the plant and no locking it up forever, and there will still be flexibility to do what is needed to be done. Oden: all issues have been discussed, but he was not prepared for ballot measure to address SIREN; that he was not certain about an advisory question on the water purity, and to keep issues from getting cloudy, it should not be added; that he agreed with Hodges, in principle about the initiative; however, the plant belongs to the City, and, therefore, it has an obligation to present the information as it sees fit. Study Session 6-9-99, Page 3 There was discussion concerning the council initiated charter amendment and whether to be specific as to amount of funds to be spent on Parks & Recreation and seniors; how “benefiting seniors” would be defined, especially since it will be in the charter. City Attorney explained that proponents who favored a “Prop R-2” type measure wanted to make certain that use of the funds was specific enough to preclude money being drained off elsewhere and then not being used for parks and recreation; that libraries and the swim center could also be included in a broad definition; that if after several years it became clear that the parks were in good shape, another charter amendment could be proposed to redirect the funds. Hodges suggested a percentage of tax, rather than a flat amount. Mayor suggested that the proponents could be asked to draw up the language they had in mind, and the Council could present it as its initiative. Suggestion that use of funds be as noted be for park and recreation public infrastructure. Adjourn: 11 p.m.