Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-01-16-79-Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 1979 The City Council/Community Development Commission of the City of Downey held an adjourned regular meeting at 4:30 p.m., January 16, 1979 in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall, Mayor/Chairman William L. Greene presiding. PRESENT: Council Members/Commissioners: Theodore H. Jackman Kenneth J. Miller Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman William L. Greene Mayor/Chairman ABSENT: Milton R. Mackaig (arrived at 4:35_p.m.) Lyel1 W. Swearingen (arrived at 4:35 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: Charles W. Thompson, City Manager Ervin Spindel, Director of Community Development Thomas Tincher, Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Howard Stup, Building Official R.L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Mr. Tincher gave an update report on the Overall Project Financing. Interviews have been completed for potential bond counsel. The indicated recommendation will be the firm of Orric-Herrington to assist in the preparation of the bond issue along with Dean -Witter as the financial consultant. A meeting has been scheduled for this Friday to review the Diller owner participation agreement. Four actual agreements are under consideration: Mingura & McAlister, Diller, CArdono and a fourth (on a preliminary basis) with Phil Presicci on the develop- ment of the Sergeant Building property. Commissioner Jackman inquired as to extent of first bond issue. Mr. Tincher replied that if, the first three agreements are considered,the total, bonding capacity would be $1,250,000 as a tax allocation bond issue. It may be to the City+s advantage to hold off on the bond issue pending the addition of more agreements so as to have a larger issue. In the meantime, other resources, such as Federal General Revenue Sharing funds, might be considered until issuing bonds. Mr. Thompson explained each bond issue involves issuance costs and consul- tant costs that decrease if a larger bond issue is possible. Printing costs are not much greater for a $5 million issue than for a half -million dollar issue. Also, depending upon circumstances, the type of bond issues can be different, such as lease revenue bonds rather than tax allocation bonds. Discussion followed regarding bond interest and possessory interest tax that would be handled by the bond consultant. Also, fee structures were discussed. Mr. Tincher reviewed the Specific Plan for Mingura & McAlister Project, which is located in the Paramount-Gardendale Sub -area of the redevelopment project desiginated for medium density residential use with continued business use between Devenir and Puritan Streets.- A small portion at the corner of Paramount and Gardendale could be retained for Commercial use. The remainder of existing declining commercial areas would be converted to residential use as the redevelopment plan is carried out. Two parties have presented a development proposal for construct- ing units for residential uses between Devenir and- Comolette and bordering on Paramount Blvd. into four duplex units. Recognizing that Paramount Blvd. is an arterial corridor. A block wall is being considered to isolate the proposed residential units from traffic on Paramount Blvd. Commissioner Swearingen questioned the feasibility of combining residential and commercial units and whether this would fit into the General Plan. Mr. Tincher stated the General Plan has been amended to basically meet the proposal. Council/Community Dev. Comm. Minutes '1/I6/79 (Adjourned) -1- Mr. Thompson commented that commercial developers are not interested in this sub -area because of limited depth (100 feet). The area bordered by Gardendale and Paramount Blvd. (northeast block) has been considered for develop- ment. However, a vast residential area would have to be cleared and several residents relocated. Discussion followed regarding various developers who have shown some interest in developing the Gardendale/Paramount subarea. Mr. Tincher explained the Financial Analysis for the subarea. "The Jackson Building" could be acquired for $1,700. Demolition costs of structure would be $200. The relocation obligation for Baptist Church would be $2,500. Public improvements would cost $27,500 including development of a block wall. Alley improvements are included. Total cost to the Commission is $38,400. Revenue has a projected market value of $700,000 consisting of four completed duplex units, as well as a fifth duplex unit that has already been built. Further discussion ensued regarding establishing property values in the proposed subarea between Comolette and Devenir Streets. Commissioner Miller questioned $2,500 relocation cost for the Church. Mr. Hill of Municipal Services Inc. explained the Church qualifies as a non-profit organization and is eligible for either actual moving costs or a payment of $2,500 in.lieu of moving expenses. Commissioner Mackaig referred to furnishing underground power and telephone service.and to constructing a block wall on Paramount Blvd, as well as sidewalks. Mr. Thompson described the proposed block wall and sidewalk for the project. The wall will have a very coarse surface for discouraging grafitti. The business frontage will not have a block wall. A discussion was held regarding underground utility service. The project will require underground wiring to be installed at the time of construction and installation of sidewalks. Commissioner Jackman prefers to stay with commercial development in this area rather than combine commercial and residential. He does not care for the block wall. Mr. Thompson explained post-war trends do not favor strip commercial development due to inadquate depth. Supermarket; and ancillary stores have proven to be more successful. He pointed out that the opposite (west) side of Paramount Blvd. is completely residential and has a block wall for the entire length of the tract. This property has maintained its value over the years. Chairman Greene made a motion to approve the proposed project as presented to the Community Development Commission. Discussion followed regarding inclusion or exclusion of underground power,,. wall, sidewalks and landscaping as part of project costs or to be borne by the construction contractor. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Thompson said a breakdown will be obtained of these items from engineering. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the market value the Tax Assessor is going to set on this project will remain at $700,000. Mr. Thompson explained the O.P.A. must specify the amount of the construction investment. This would be a part of the signed agreement. Mr. Hill clarified that the project analysis -contains a 50% safety factor. Also, it is anticipated the County will apply a two percent inflation factor as a general policy.No factors have, as yet, been included in the current analysis. It is felt that enough safety factor has been put into the project analysis to compensate for inflation. Also, another factor yet to be reflected is the in- crease in value of surrounding properties. Cou:acil/Community Dev, Comm. Minutes 1/16/79 (adjourned) -2- Mr. Tincher said $38,000 is set aside in the.Redevelopment Budget as a reserve for undesignated redevelopment projects that could support the Para- mount/Gardendale project.. At this time it would appear what is needed is a recommendation that the.Ci.ty advance a.certain amount of funds to cover these initial costs of the initial O.P.A.'s. The cost would be paid back out of the bonding. The primary source of funding would be the available General Revenue sharing. He indicated that basically, what is needed is direction from the Redevelopment Commission to proceed with drafting of owner participation agreement consisting of information received in packets for the upcoming City Council Meeting. Discussion followed regarding condition of existing commercial facilities on Paramount Blvd. Mr. Hill said Messrs.. Mingura & McAlister might proceed to develop the area even if not approved. This is an opportunity to improve& update the Community. Mr. Thompson pointed out the project would not be built in the same way, though, it couldnTt have the same requirements as are now required in order to preserve the neighborhood and protect it for future investment that will be made there. Chairman Greene made a motion to approve the project the way it is, subject to having the numbers provided to us before we approve. The motion died for lack of second. Chairman Greene then adjourned the Community Development Commission meeting at 6:45 Pm. CITY COUNCIL The adjourned regular meeting was called to order, all Council Members were present. _. Mayor Greene recessed the meeting to executive session to discuss litigation. t. The meeting resumed with all Council Members presen' The meeting was then adjourned at 7:35 p.m.` Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer William L. Greene, May f Council/Community Dev. Comm. Minutes 1/16/79 (Adjourned) -3-