Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2013 SA (2)MINUTES SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SPECIAL STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE EVMWD BOARDROOM, 31315 CHANEY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2013 CALL TO ORDER 5:00 P.M. Chairman Magee called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Magee led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Magee Vice -Chair Johnson Agency Member Hickman Agency Member Manos Agency Member Tisdale Also present: Executive Director Yates, Legal Counsel Leibold, Agency Clerk Bloom, Administrative Services Director Riley, Community Development Director Taylor, GIS Analyst Barrozo, Interim Public Works Director Eskandari, and Deputy City Clerk Gutierrez. PUBLIC COMMENTS — NON -AGENDIZED ITEMS —1 MINUTE None STUDY SESSION 1.) Long Range Property Management Plan Recommendation: It is recommended that the Successor Agency discuss the proposed disposition of the Successor Agency's real property assets consistent with the requirements of the Long Range Property Management Plan and provide direction to staff. Successor Agency Minutes Special Study Session Meeting of October 8, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Legal Counsel Leibold provided a presentation to the Agency regarding the Long Range Property Management Plan and explained the Redevelopment Agency Dissolution Act. She explained the requirement of the inventory of the real property assets and proposed the use or disposition of those properties consistent with the Act. Counsel Leibold stated that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore owned 57 properties as of the date of its dissolution. A number of those properties are affordable housing sites that are exempt from the Long Range Property Disposition because they were acquired with low and moderate housing funds. Counsel Leibold reviewed the individual properties by categories of governmental purpose, enforceable obligation, properties to be sold and properties to be held for future development. Agency Member Hickman asked if there are any contingencies if the Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium properties (Map ID #14 and #15) were sold. Counsel Leibold responded that the properties were donated by the Lehr family to the former Redevelopment Agency exclusively for purposes of constructing and operating a professional minor league baseball stadium. The restriction runs until 2043. The donation requires that the Lehr Family be compensated for the properties if they are sold or converted to an alternative use. Agency Member Hickman asked if there was 700 acres for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ( MSHCP) in the conservation easement properties (Map ID #1 and #2). Counsel Leibold explained that the MSHCP contemplates that approximately 770 acres of the 3,500 back basin will be devoted for conservation purposes. Currently, there are conservation easements under review at the Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies. Counsel Leibold spoke to Governmental Purpose /Historic Preservation ( #24) and informed that the property is approximately half an acre in size with a historic gazebo structure located on the property and the Historical Society was considering preserving the gazebo structure for historic preservation. Vice -Chair Johnson asked for clarification of the proposed use /disposition. Counsel Leibold responded that it was her recommendation that this property be shifted out of the "to be sold" category and into the "governmental purpose historic preservation" category until staff receives more information. Ruth Atkins, President of the Historic Preservation Society, provided a brief history of the gazebo. A well was donated by Mary McDonald in the 1930s and is located under the gazebo. Agency Member Manos asked if the property can be subdivided to detach the developed property and sell the rest of the property, or go out for an RFQ to develop the remainder of the property. Counsel Leibold responded that it can all be done as long as the State Department of Finance agrees. Agency Member Manos asked who would carry the cost. Counsel Leibold responded that if the property is disposed the Successor Agency is able to deduct all of those costs from the purchase price that is paid to the Successor Agency before any of the money is distributed. All of the costs associated with preparing the site are deducted from the proceeds of the sale. Counsel Leibold reviewed the requirements for properties to be sold. Successor Agency Minutes Special Study Session Meeting of October 8, 2013 Page 3 of 5 Vice -Chair Johnson asked if the recommendation was purely categorization of what is going to be done with the Property Management Plan. Counsel Leibold responded in the affirmative. She further explained that staff would provide as much missing information as possible and incorporate comments from the Successor Agency and bind into a single document as the Long Term Property Management Plan. The plan will first be submitted to the Oversight Board and the Successor Agency and then submitted to the Department of Finance. Agency Member Manos expressed his direction to change the category and to hold the property for further evaluation as recommended. Agency Counsel Leibold reviewed the category of Properties to be sold for development in a manner to be consistent with the Dissolution Act. She explained the unencumbered monies held by the Redevelopment Agencies. Mayor Magee asked if 11 percent of the property taxes will come back to the City as unencumbered money. Agency Counsel Leibold responded in the affirmative as it is general fund monies. Mayor Magee asked if the properties (Map ID # 9 and #10) that front Main Street and adjacent properties (Map ID #8 and #11) are owned by the City. He stated that this would be the time to consolidate the properties. Agency Counsel Leibold stated that both properties #8 and #11 could be merged into one and properties #9 and #10 into another, but not all four properties could not be merged into one. However, the two merged properties can be marketed together. Counsel Leibold reviewed the category of Properties to be Held for Future Development Vice -Chair Johnson asked what the challenges are for the interim use of properties held for development (Map ID #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7). Counsel Leibold stated that she was unaware of the state approving any such interim use. Once the City's Property Management Plan is approved by the State then the City is empowered. Until then, the City has no legal authority to entitle the properties. Counsel Leibold asked the Agency if they wanted to hold these properties for development, because staff needed time to evaluate how this fits in with the downtown development. In the meantime, the City would like to make beneficial use of the property for downtown parking. Agency Member Tisdale asked if these properties can be categorized under development and government purposes. Counsel Leibold responded in the affirmative. Agency Member Tisdale stated that he would like to see these properties held for government purposes. Agency Member Manos concurred with Agency Member Tisdale and suggested that the properties be used for a civic center or other governmental use. Vice -Chair Johnson stated that by putting in an interim agreement for a parking lot at a nominal cost they would be supporting the downtown area. Successor Agency Minutes Special Study Session Meeting of October 8, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Agency Member Manos asked City Manager Yates if there are means to utilize untapped funds to construct a public use facility. City Manager Yates responded that the City has development impact fees that it has been collecting for governmental buildings. Staff will be discussing a study to understand what those fees and facilities would be. Staff is considering various methods to fund projects that the Council would like to see. Agency Member Tisdale asked for clarification that governmental use is not set in stone. Counsel Leibold explained that governmental purposes are properties that are presently used for governmental purposes as opposed to slated for future development as a governmental purpose. Chairman Magee stated that prior to February 2011 the City Council set aside money and had a design to improve these properties as a parking lot. He explained that because of the legislation of February 2011 the City was in limbo with the project. Chairman Magee stated that the Successor Agency could make the finding that the property is governmental purpose because it has been used as a parking lot for the cultural center and various public meetings for the last 19 years. He suggested a design with two inches of asphalt or a pilot paving project with some light landscaping and lights. It would not be a major investment and it would dramatically improve the downtown area. Chairman Magee stated that the property should be two designations, government use and property to be developed later. Vice -Chair Johnson asked if there was a design that was already submitted to the City for the parking lot improvement. Chairman Magee responded in the affirmative. He said that staff could review the design again. Agency Member Hickman asked if the old boat launch was taken into consideration for the properties identified as Map ID #44, #45, #46, #47, and #48). Counsel Leibold explained that because these properties are adjacent to city owned properties, the idea of merging these properties to maximize the development potential. Agency Member Hickman explained that these properties can be tied in with the boat ramp. Vice -Chair Johnson asked if there are challenges because they are city owned properties. Counsel Leibold explained the legal requirements for selling the properties. The former Redevelopment Agency property can be marketed and sold for the highest and best use. The City owned properties generally have to go through the surplus procedures. She offered that the City Attorney's office needed to research if there is a way to merge the properties and offer them together without the surplus procedures. Agency Member Manos asked if there was a potential of holding the property for development and structuring a long term lease for development opportunity. Counsel Leibold stated she was unaware of a long term hold of the property. Agency Member Tisdale asked if once the Property Management Plan was approved by the State if there was going to be a timeline imposed. He stated that the City has had these properties for over 36 years. Counsel Leibold responded that is why the State eliminated the redevelopment agencies. The key will be when the monies are paid to the various taxing entities. Successor Agency Minutes Special Study Session Meeting of October 8, 2013 Page 5 of 5 Agency Member Manos asked if the City has to acquire appraisals for properties that are held for development. Counsel Leibold responded that the the City has to obtain an appraisal before any property is sold. ADJOURNMENT The Successor Agency of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore will adjourn this Study Session to the regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 7:00 at the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water D4 Pict (EVMWD) Boardroom located at 31315 Chaney Street, Lake Elsinore, CA. Robert L. Magee, C airman i Vrrginia J. loom, e cy Clerk