HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2002 City Council Study SessionMINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
183 NORTH MAIN STREET
LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
TH(JRSDAY, APRIL 2, 2002
~:~~:~,~~~:~x~~~~~,~*~~~~~:~,~~~~~~r~~~~x*~~~~~~~,~~~~*~~~~x~~~x~~*~~~
CALL TO QRDER _
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner called the Study Session to order at 3:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Couacilman Hickman led the Piedge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
, PRESENT: COUNCii,MFMR~S. BUCKI.EY, HI~K.MAN
,SCHIFFN~R,
ABSEN3': COUNCILMEMBERS: BRINLEY, ItELLEY
(Mayor Kelley arrived at 3:42 p.m.)
Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager
Best, Deputy City Attorney Mann; Administrative Services D~ir~ctor
B¢one; Community Services Director Sapp, Information/ :
Communications Manager Dennis, City Engineer 0'Donnell, Builditrg
and Safety Manager Russell anil'Deputy CityClerk Pare~es.
DISCUSSION ITEM
]_ LSA Traffic Mitigation Fee Stud~.
City Manager ~Vate~paugti itidicated fi.~at an ovti;rview of the ~,SA
Traffrc Nfitigation Study woulct be presentect as well as consicteratirnt
of the suinuiarization of the Goa1 Setting Study Session. -
P~GE TWO - STUDY SE3SION = APRIL 2; 2002
City Engineer p'Donnell noted the amqunt of time and .effort that was
required to pxoduc.~ the T_raffic Mitigation.Fee Study. He indicated
that Council was provided e~ibits that were the end result of the
Study. He intraduced I~evin Fincner and Tony Petros from L5A
Keviii Fincher LSA, Associates, presented an overview of the process
used to establish fees.
MAYQR.KELLEY ARRIVED AT 3:42 P.M.
I~evin; Fiucher explained that the purpose of the study was to establish
a linkage between the traffic that was generated by new development
and the associated"roadway improvements tliat would be needed to
accommodate the traffic. He emphasized that the purpose of the
program was not to fully build out the General Plan Traffic
Circulation Sy~t~m as identified in th~ General Plan;_ howevex the
intent was to construct that portion of the General Plan and System
that would be needed to accornmodate new development in the next
twenty to twenty-five years. He indicated that the parameters
included new development witliin the Corporate City Limits as weli`as
the Sphere of Influence; analysis to year 2025 for tt~e horizon of the
Study; and Peek hours of traffic to guantify the measurement of fees.
He explained that they used cturent data provided by the Gity to
estahlish Land Use for existing conditions and projected thetotal -
roadway system for now and in t~e future. He commentecl that the
current roadways were not adequate for current development and the '
Study addressed a seY of improuements, needed; new construction of
roadways; freeway interchanges; and bridges to address developrnent
in the next twenty-five years. Mr. Fincher preserited an overview of ,
the traffic model used and how the needed roadways and
improvements wez'e estat~li.sh,ed. .H,e pres~n.ted exhzbits that outlined
the raadways that would need improvements and construction. He
noted the charts that were given to Council and explained how each
- fee was established to impiement Traffic:Mitigatian. Fees at a totat
cost of $178 million : He further explained that.the key issue in a fee
program was that future development could not be assessed for tfie
FA~E THRE~ - STUI3Y SESS~Ol~ - AP~tII: 2; 2f102 >
total cost of the improvements, since each development did not
contribute to the totai needs of the City, hut r.ather ~uhat unpaEti the
future development created. I~Ir. Fincher indicated-that he would be
a~ailable for questions:
City Engineer O'DonnelI indicated that after LSA fiad formulated the
cost for improvements and eligible trips, staff calculated how trips
would be generated per Land Use. He explained that it was split into
categories, which were residential, multi-family residential,:
commercial, Qf~ce; and andustrial. He explained the formula used and
noted that a eomparisorl ~as done be~ee~ the Cit~ of Mutrieta; City
of Teniecula azld City of Carona to be sure that the formula was
competitive witfi surrouncting cities. He noted tlie Sphere of inftuence
and suggested that the City could work in cooperation with the
County of Riverside to conform to the City's roadways. He explained
that wittiout the Sphere of Influence costs; the fee would t~e $1,172
per.res~dential-unit, vuhich would include the interchange at Oliue
Street and a l% administrative fee. Gity Engi~eer O'Donnell
mdicated that sho~zld the Crty Coancil wish to encrnuage conunercial
and industriat uses and be competitive witti the City of 1Vlurrieta and
the City of Temecula. He indicated that staff developed a formura
that would allow the Ciry Council to underwrite the impact fee for
commercial of~ice and industrial land uses by 30% and therefore
reduce.the~ost:pBr square.faot.to.bE within.a competiti~e.r.ange. The
breal~downs for Scer~arios of tt~e Roadway Impact ~'ees- are as- follows;
S~en,~r-ia 1 Fu~d- a~l iu~pr-oue~ents Ciry ai~d Sphere of influence
(~OI). ($162,035,113)
~esidentia~ $1,687 per unit
Multi-Family $1,181 perunit
Commercial $6.75 per sq ft.
Office $2.53.per sy. ft.
I~idustrial. $1..43.per sq.ft.
PAGE FOtJR -~TUDY~ SESSIOl~ - APRIL 2; 2002
Scenario 2 Reduce the fee by eliminating the SOI improvements
except.the. interchange. at Q1ive.:S.t. and add a l%.administration fe~_.
($111;486,483)
Residential -$1;172-per unit
Multi-Famil~ $820 per unit
Gommercial $4.69 per sq. ft.
Of~ce $1.76 per sq. ft.
industrial $ t.OO per sq. ft.
Ssenario 3 Same as scenario 2 and the City ta underwrite the impact
fee for commercial, office and industrial land uses by 30 %.
Lake Elsinore Temecula Murrieta
Residential $1,172perunit $898perunit $1,169
per unit
Multi-Family $820 per unit $630 per unit $7G3
per unit _
Commercial $3.28 per sq. ft: $3.41 per sq. ft $3.24
per sq. ft.
Office $1.23 per sq. ft. $1.71 per sq. ft. $1.58
per sq. ft.
Indnstrial $O.~O per sq.fE. $0:81 per sq. ft. $0.48
per sq. ft.
City Engineer O'Donnell explained the City of Lake Elsinore would
be very competitive with the County of Riverside Roadway Impact
Fee. He presented a number of ezampies of recent development that
had occurred under the current individual nexus and compared what it
would be if the Roadway Impact Fee had been adopted.
City Manager Watenpaugh clari~ed if the County Zone "A" charged
the same for Residential as they did for Multi-Family. City Engineer
O'Donnell stated"that it was presented as the same amount far both.
~~~E k't~E - ~~TD~' ~E~~Iffl~ - EY~RI~, 2; 2flfl2
C~nn~ilman Bnckley ~nestioned the .amonnt cnnditioned that would
b~ pa~d by Oal~ ~iro~e Equities far the proposed apartments behind
Wal-Mart. Ctty Engineer O'Don~ell stated ~hat-it was cor~ditio~ed at
~30;000 for roadtivay improvements and $15,000 For signaiizafiibn on
Grape. : Councilman-Buckley questioned fhe amount under the
proposed Roadway Impact Fee. City Engmeer t)rponnell stated that
it would be $128,000 under the proposed Roadway Impact Fee. He
asked what the current fee would be for a 2,500 square foothouse.
City Engineei- Q'Donnell. stated that it would ba $..03- a square. foot f~or
lot area. -Gouncilman-Bt~ckley asked if Gleveland Ridge ~as -in t~ie
Sphe~e of Irifluenee of the ~ifi~ of Lai~e ~l~inore: City Manager
Watenp~ugh expiained th~t Cieveland Riilge was rerri~ved and then
returned to tfie City's Sphere ofinftuence some time ago.
Councilman Buckley asked for clarification regarding the Sports
Track category under Eligible Trips. Mr. Fincher stated that it was a
categary in the General Plan and was connectad to the property by the
~tad~um. I~e would c~eck the model -and get back to staff vs~ith the
in€ormation t~der ~ligib~e Tri~s. Mr. Fi~cher stated t~at ifi was a
category in the General Ptan and was cormected to the properiy iTy the
Stadium. He would check the modei and get back to sCaff with ttie
° informatzon. Councilman Buckley inquired when L5A considered the
back basin, if they used the Stadium as a template. Mr. Fincher stated
that they used the Stadium as the base for recreational uses and
addxessed .tbe -back .basin .Phase I far .patential rlevelmpxnent within .the
ne~t twenty~ve years. ~ou~eilina~ Buckley addt~essed Scenario 1
a~d stated tl~at if tke City were to eollect fees for fitie County, tlier~ tl~e
people in the ~phere of Influence might misunderstanct it as the first
action of annexation. He commented ttiat he was not in favor of'that
action. He asked for clari~cation regarding the proposed future
roadways noted on the map. City Engineer O'Donneil explained that
the develop~r wonldreceive .a crs.dit _fQr any.sectinn ofroadway thai
he built as pa~t of the develop~n~nt. He cla~ified t~at. E~gi~~ering Fvas
~vc~rk2rtg witii the Ct~ A~vrrtey'~ 4f~ce ~ ae~tc~ress ti~e issuE.
~onncitma~r Bucktey requestect crarifieatirnr where Y1re mcmey woul•d
-go shoulcl the Roadway Impact Fee pass. Crty Attorney ~'Donnell
stated that tiie $111 miTlion would onIy go to street improvements
PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 2, 2002 '
specifically identified on the list that would be adopted with the
Roadway Impact Eee: He stressed that the funds could not be nsed for
street maintenance.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner asked if the City wouid be restricted should
the roadways change with future deuelopment. City ~ngineer
O'Donnell stated that the map submitted would be designated as a
planning map and could be adjusted.
City Manager Watenpaugh clarified changes that might occur because
of the MSHCP. He noted that some of the streets might be eliminated
and others created to adjust for that plan.
Councilman Buckley asked for an estimate of the amount that 30% for
underwriting Commercial and Industrial would be. City Engineer
O'Donnell stated that it would be addressed by each project. City
Manager Watenpaugh stated that the 30% would not all be from
General Fund dollars, but rather some from Measure "A" funds and
other resources.
Mayor Kelley asked how the Roadway Impact Fee would mesh with
the Regional TiJMF fee. Ciry Manager Watenpaugh explained that
the Gity could not duplicate the fees and if the fee the City collected
was for an arterial roadway within the City; then it would not affect
: the County's Regional T[JMF fee. He indicatefl that the City was
having a meeting with the County to discuss how it ixupacted the
Measure "A" funds. He noted that the Oli~e Street Interehange was
left in the fee and the City would have to collecY $5.3 million and then
give the money to the County to pay for the interchange and the
County wouldpap anything over the $5.3 million.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he had recently received
information from Eric Haley, Executive Director of RCTC that they
would be proposing a project for the improvement of Raitroad Canyon
Road. He noted that was the first project that they had included from
Lake Elsinore. Mayor Kelley asked if it addressed the interchange
P~~E' S~~ItT - ~~~~? ~E~~IO~T - ~PItYT: Z; 2~iD2'
at RailrQ.ad Canynn Rfla~l. Mayor Pr~ T~m S~hiffner stated that.it w.as
pr.oposed for the ~id~n~ng o#'Rail~oad;Ca~yon-Itoad-and noted-that
t~tere:were ~o plans far ~he in~erc~ange pr-oposed tn the i2egional
TUlt~IF. He rroted that Ra'rlroa~l ~anyon Road was Chg only projeet
that the ~ounty T`tJ1vIF' was going to address.
Mayor Kelley asked why the City would contribute to the County if
the City were going to address its own fee. City Manager
~atenpaugh explained that the County's T`iJMF fee was Regional and
would address collecEors between-regions and not necessarily within
eities. It~layor Pro 'Fem Schiffner asked if ih~ developer would be
paying the City's fee and the County 3't7IvIF fee ~ wetl. City
Ivianager Watenpaugli explained" that tlie ~ity woutd be establishing a
Roadway Impact Fee far the roads and improvements within the Ciry
and the County would charge a Regional Fee to develop connectors
l~e~cveen the different cities.. He nQted that th~ residents would
participate for bnth to allow for proper connections. 1Vlayor I~elley
asked hotiv much tiie Regianal fee would be per house. City Ma~lager
Watenpaugh stated that it was between $2,3U0 and $6,000; however
no finat number had tieen reached to date. Councilman Buckley
commented that a11 of the cities wonld be paying the same ~ee. Mayor
Kelley stated that the City would notgain much directbenefit from
the Regional T`UNIF fee. Councilman Buckiey noted that the
Regional TL1MF would.:be paying fnr ihe roadway beiween Lake
Els~or€ and Per~i~. Iv~ayor I~elley stated that most of the
impravements from the Regional TtJ1VIF were slated for 9outli
: eounty. Ivlayor P~o Tem Sckuffner stated that ttie City had considered
not participating since there were no improvements scheduled for
Lake Elsinore: Mayor Kelley stated that Railroad Canyon Road was
not much in the scope of things. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated
the-coa~do~ co.nnecting-Orange Cowaty arad ~vas identi~ed as a
patential; howe~er it was.not on the RCIP. He remitided Council that
the City of Lake Elsinore was not paying anything for Highway 74,
wiuch would benefit the eity of Lake Etsinore: Caunciiman Buckley
noted that Railroad 'Canyon Road was the carrot at the end of fhe
PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION - APRII: 2, 2002
stick. He commented that Coachella Va11ey had a TIJIVIF and any city
that did not participate with their TUMF recaived no Measure "A"
money. City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that the people voted on
that issue in 1988: Councilman Buckley stated that he woutd like to
irnow how rnuch the 30% represented and stressed that he wanted to
see the City stay competitive. City Manager Watenpaugh asked if
staff could follow-up with a memo in regard to the 30%. Councilman
Bucktey agreed.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner clarified that the amount of money in-
commercial was a relatively small portion of the total cost. He noted
that most of the development took place in Lake Elsinore was
residential. He noted that was why some of the other jurisdictions had
a different ratia City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that what was
considered was the City's TTJMF and the County's Regional TIJMF;
however the Regional T'U1vIF had not been completed to make a fmal
consideration.
Councitman Hickman asked what the current charge was for
Residenrial and Multi-Family: Gity Engineer O'Donnell stated that it
was $.Q3 ger square foot for all types of building. Councilman
Hickman asked how many homes were on the drawing board for the
City of Lake Elsinore. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that it would
be approximately 20,OOQ unit growth betweerr now and 2025. '
Councilman Hickman asked if the Study by LSA addressed the
MSHCP. Kevin Fincher stated that the Study was based solely on
available Land Use pro,jections from the City and County. He noted
that the County had not approved the MSHCP and therefore it could
not be used as part of the study. Councilman Hickman indicated that
a letter from Murdock stated that the MSHCP would take
approximately 40% of the available land for developrnent and `
commented that if that were true, then it would have a direct impact
on the Study. He questioned the impact the 30% would ha~e on the
City's budget. City Engineer 0'Donnell stated that they had just
figured out the percentage and it would be approximately $24 million,
PAGE NINE - STUDY SESSION - APRIL 2; 20Q2
which vvoul~l_be fund~d thr.ough_some _other source. Mayor Pro TEm
Sehiffner sta~ed thaz it could be done with.Measure "A", ~he gas tax or
any other funding souree a~aiiabie.
CouncilmanIiickman asked Administrative Services Director Boone
how it would be fanded: Administrative services D~rector Boone
stated that it could'be funded through Measure "A", since it would not
be necessary to fund al] of tUe $24 Million at one iims_ City Manager
Wate~pa~gk~ stated ~hat a-po~tion af the $24 million-cou.ld b€ cr-edited
back to the de~eloper that built part of the roadway. Councilman
Hickcnan inquire~ if tiYe current fundurgmecl~anism was the anly orte
the City had available. City Manager VJatenpaugh stated that unless
Council wished to add General Fund dollars, tfie currant capital fund
mechanism was the only fund available. He noted that it had been
placed in effect in the middle 1980's. Mayor Kelley stated that the
$.03 a fao.t vuas laughable. and that was why it was.important to
address the City's TiJMF. Gouncilman Hickman conf'umed tl~at tl~e
ir~erease ~ould affect every house that was on the drawing board.
Niayor I~elley questioned if Cha program before ~ouncil would affec~
the IVIuTti-family housing project on Grape Sireee that had been
approved. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that it would have to be a
policy decision. He commented that if someone had a build'mg permit
and the prQgram went. into effect, Council might want to make the
builder exempt. He suggested a time line, such -as at the time of-the
issuanee of the Certificate of Ocsupaneg, or within 120 days of the
passage oftheprogram.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that the lndividual Single Family
Residences currently being built would be rnost affected by this issue
and possibly Council could exempt them from the fee:
~ity Ma~~g~r ~?Uatenpaug}i<ag~eed ~vi~h,'City Engi~eer Q'D.onnell°~
suggestion. He noted that if a developer had a~reacty started a projeet
then the City would noC want ta hit tiiem wit3i the fee; since Cltey have
'had fheir fmancing in place prior to the start of fhe pro~ect: He noted
that if the developer had not pulled their permits, then the City would
PAGE TEN - STUDY SESSION - APRII, 2, 2002 `
have to come up with some type of formula to allow the developer to
know in advancs; because it wouid impact the cost of the home.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stressed that it would affect the individual
builder. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that it would have to be
addresse:d in the Resolution to set criteria: Mayor:Pro Tem Schiffner
stated that he had no problem witli imposing tlie fees to anyone that
did not have a previous per-nit fee. He stated that he was not
; concerned with how our fees compared with Corona or Riverside, but
rather how it compared with the cities that Lake Elsinore had to
compete with. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it was his majar
concern that the fees conform to existing development agreements and
the City Attorney would be making a review,
City Engineer O'Donnell indicated that Gouncil would have to
consider what they would do with non-profit organizations.
Councilman Hicktnan asked how many churches were in the Ciry.
City Manager Watenpaugh indicated that there wefe 27 churches and
the point was well taken, since there was a church being built on
Railroad Canyon Road that had been requvred to do improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that the condition was not impased
because of addirional trips, butrather because of the configuration to
enter and e~t the property.
Councilman Hicktnan stated that he believed in subsidizing
commercial efforts, since he would like to see the tax base expand.
City Engineer O'Donnell stated that he did need Council to consider
Non-Pro~t Organizations. Councilman Buckley stated tkiat he felt
they should pay, and explained that although the peak time was
different, the churches still use the roads Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner
commented that he felt that the City should check to see what the
other surrounding cities did. City Engineer O'Donnell stated that the
City of Temecula and the City of Murrieta exempt churches. Mayor
Pro Tem Schaiffner stated that was one of the issues that should be
considered when Council made their decision.
PAGE EL~VEN - STTTDY SESSION - APRII. 2; 2002
Coi~ncilman Buckley clarified when the ~'ee ~ou~d be triggered i:f a
hot~e i~ tlie dowrifiown area v~ere going to bs rehabilifiated: He a~ked
if renovation was exempt because it did not create a new dwetling
unit. Crty Engineer O'T3onnell stated'that tlie Ordinance wouTd'
address atl ancitlarybuildings on a single-family residence and rt
would be exempt; unless the residence increased in value of more
SQ% inanne-yaar_perind.. ~nun~ilman:Buckley c.ammsnted that the
RDA should encourage residents to renouate older homes. Maqor Rrc~
Tem Sehiffner stated that-the Ordmance could address rehabilitation
and the City could absorb the fees.
CityIvlanager Watenpaugh asked if there were speci~cs that staff
should address prior to bringing the item before Council. Councilman
Buckley asked if the drafts had been given to the major developers to
giue.them_the oppartuni .ty to examine them. City Ia%Ianager
Wat~npaugh stated that tkiey had ~ot, howe~er the ~ity wa~requi~ed
to t~vfd a pubiie hearirtg. He indicated tl7at t11e developers were
natifed of the ~ttzdy Session: Gity Engineer O'Donneli stated that 30
letters wete sent out to indite the development communiry to attend
the Study Session.
Mayax Kelley asked. Garl lohnson of Near Ca1. ~orpoxation. to give his.
apinion.and inuited the-other dex~elopers-present, to addrass Council.
Mr. Johnson'stated that it was necessary to develop'new roadways and
the City had to gain tlie financing in some manner; therefore the fee
would be necessary to see that the roadway impact was addressed. He
commented that if a development company knew aboutthe fee prior
to development thep wouid build it into their fmancing. He felt that
the.fees were:fair.
Ed Fitzpatrick, Director of Deveio~ment for Ra~nsgate; noted his
cumpany's sensitivity to costs. 'He stated that as a developer his
company had` to be responsilile fbr carrying tlieir weight, therefore
they did not find the fee offensive. He noted that Ramsgate proposed
PAGE TWELVE - STUDY SESSION - APRII. 2, 2002
to have around 1,000 Single-Family Residences; 300 Multi-Family
Residence; an elementary school; and a 17 acre commercial site. He
explained that the development cornmunity looked at the best markets
for development and Lake Elsinore was raising to the top in this
corridor. He stated that if the development community was informed
from the beginning; then funding for theproject could incorporate the
fees and there would be no problem. He offeredto review the Study
and submit comments ftom a developer standpoint. He noted the
discussions he had with the various developers in the area. He
suggested that the fees could be made part of a CFD and then the
money would come directly to the City. Mayor Fro Tem Schiffner
commented that he would be in favor of the developers in the area
submitting recommendations.
Bill Kennedy, representative of Gren Hill agreed that the roadways
and improvements must be done. He stated that it was not a matter of
if, but rather when and how much. He inquired if the new fee would
replace the Raiiroad Canyon Road Fee: Ciry Manager Watenpaugh
explained that the Railroad Canyon Road Assessment Fee would not
be repiaced, since it was a reimbursement fee for improvements that
were already done. City Engineer O'Donnell e~lained that the $111
million dollars was for future improvements and could not be used for
past improvements. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that if the fee
were for future improvements and it fell into the Regional TiJMF,
then the City would not include it; however if it was not included in
the Regional TUMF, then it would become part of the City's 'PCJMF.
There was general discussion regarding Railroad Canyon Road
Improvements: Administtarive Services Director Boone stated that he
would research the item.
Mr. Kennedy requested a schedule of improvements. City Manager
Watenpaugh explained how dif~cult a schedule would be to formulate
since there was no firm date and tirne when the developments would
be built, however staff would try to develop a rough schedule. Mr.
P~GE'T~IIlZ~'EEN - STUDY SESS~ON - APRIL 2; 2Q02
Kennedy s~irnmarized his requests for infor~nation rega~ding fees _and
schedi~les.
: Tony Petros; LSA Associates, stated that once a fee schedule was
adopted'~here were requirements for annual monitormg of the fee,
which iuvolved a public hearing. He e~lained tliat there was <a five-
year sunset on the allocation or appropriation of fees that must be
reirrabuzs~d sh_Quld the maney not be e~r_mark~d f~r a s_peci~c project.
He indicated haw difficult:it wauld be ta develop a schedule on the
long list of improvemen#s; since it was heing addressed by a twenty-
five ~ear horizon. He nated that ttiere wouid be an opportunity on a
ax-nual basis to review the accounting of the fee; how the fee was
administered; fiow tlie fee was spent; what interest was generated
frorn the fee; and what were the attendant capital improvements from
the list that the fee was earmarked for. He indicated that one of the
majar benefits of a fe.e program was the provision of same level of
certainty for the new-development Lhat was to-come on line.
City Manager Watenpaugh stated that for clarification, itwas
suggested that the development community be offered the opportunity
to meet with staff and walk through the Study. Gouncilman Buckley
suggested that a copy be provided to the developers and they could
submit their comments to staff within 10 days. City Manager
Watenpaugh stated that staff wouid send the studies and be available
for comments as well. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner stated that they
would like to see this done as soon as possibie.
CITY COiTNCIL RECESSED AT 5:08 P.M.
CiTY COLTNCiL RECONVENED AT S:15 P.M. iN JOiNT SESSiON
WITH TH~ RED~VELQPNI~NT A.GEN~'Y.
PAGE FOURTEEN - STUDY SESSION '- APRiL 2, 2002
2. Goa1 Setting.
City Manager/Executive Director Watenpaugh noted that at a previous
Joint Study Session the City Council and RDA Board discussed the
different goals that each member:would like to see addressed and
invited Council/Agency makea review of the Goa1s that he had
developed from that meeting. He stated that after review of the Goals,
staff could incorporate them into the City's budget. He indicated this
would allow staff to chart their accomplishments and help to keep
Council informed of the progress that had been made. He suggested
that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency review the Goa1s
listed and share theu comments to allow staff to present the modified
goals at the Budget Workshop on April 16. He indicated thatthe list
of Goals would not be incorporated into the Budget until the
Workshops were complete. Councilman/Vice Chairman Hickman
asked if staffwished CounciltBoardmembers to prioritize the items
listed. City Manager/Execurive Director Watenpaugh indicated that it
was the intent of staff to reach each of the Goa1s listed throughout the
year. Councilman/Boardmember Buckley noted the difference
between the Goa1s of the Gity and the RDA and asked if the first goal
of the RDA was to get as mueh money as possible to pay back the
City and if so, was it the City's desire to have more recreation and
tourism which would mean fewer houses. Gity Manager Watenpaugh
stated that staff inet with Chairwoman Brinley and Vice Chairman
Hickman to discuss priorities and both expressed a concern that the
RDA needs to formally adopt some type of repayment schedule for
the City; the Low Income Housing Set Aside; and money for some
sma11 projects. He stated that Council could prioritize the goals and
staff would comply. Assistant City Manager/Assistant Executive
Director Best indicated that if CouncilmembersBoardmembers could
provide their comments regarding the goals by no later than April' 9~' '
to a11ow staff the time to compile the information and ha~e it ready for
the meeting of April 16t''
PAGE FIFTEEN - S~UDY S~SSION - ~f~AA~-O~''
ADJOURNMENT
TI3E CI'FY COUNCIL STUDY ~ESSION WAS ADJOURNED AT
6:35 P.M.
CITY~' LAKE
1
~ ~~~~
xica~vra~v, vicE cxAiRMAiv
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Respectfu~ly submitted,
/ ~
_ --
A r'a L. Pare s, Deputy City Clerk
CTTY CLERK
AITMAN RESOIJRCES DiRECTOR
C~TY OF LAKE ELSINORE