Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1985-06-12 MINUTES THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING June 12, 1985 TIME: 7:00 p,m. PLACE: Community Room, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Richard A. Haffey called the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Richard A. Haffey; Vice Chairperson Roberta Cerri Teglia; Member Mark N. Addiego; Member Gus Nicolopulos Absent: Member Emanuele N. Damonte Also Present: Executive Director/Secretary C. Walter Birkelo, Assistant Secretary Mark Lewis, Counsel Herman Fitzgerald GENDA REVIEW: Executive Director Birkelo requested that Item #8 be continued to the next meeting in as much as the County Board of Supervisors did not act on that item at their meeting, but have it scheduled for next Tuesday. Also request that this meeting be adjourned to next Wednesday when we are scheduled to meet on the capital improvement program, APPROVAL OF It was motioned by Vice Chairperson Teglia, seconded by Member Addiego BILLS: that the claims as submitted for payment in the amount of $825,867.37 for June 12, 1985, be approved. Motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. APPROVAL OF Vice Chairperson Teglia moved, seconded by Member Addiego, that the Minutes MINUTES: of the Regular Meeting of March 13, 1985; Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 20, 1985; Regular Meeting of March 27, 1985; Special Meeting of April 3, 1985; and Regular Meeting of April 10, 1985 be approved, The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. RESOLUTION Council Herman Fitzgerald explained to the Board that this is a routine OWNER matter which is generally adopted as part of most redevelopment plans. PARTICIPATION This one may be a little different in that your participation will be U.S. STEEL: extensive by the proposed redeveloper, this brings them within the umbrella of the redevelopment plan and close rules, subjects them to the rules, on the other hand, the redevelopment law requires that each redevelopment plan shall allow the owner to participate, and that is what we are doing, setting forth the guidelines. [] I F I OWNER It was moved by Vice Chairperson Te§lia and seconded by Member Nicolopulos ..... PARTICIPATION that the resolution be adopted, Motion as made and seconded was regularly U.S. STEEL ~-v carried. The resolution is entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Continued: ~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION BY PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U. S. STEEL PLANT SITE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF SAID RULES TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. RESOLUTION Planning Director Smith informed the Board this is another procedural item. SUBMITTAL OF The Plan and the report has been submitted to the Board; we have to start REDEVELOPMENT advertising for the public hearing, and the hearing, itself, will be on PLAN & SETTING July 10. JOINT HEARING: It was moved by Member Addiego and seconded by Vice Chairperson Teglia that the plan be submitted to the City Council and set July 10, 1985 as the joint hearing date. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. AGENCY Executive Director Birkelo stated that this item is to allow for discussion PROMOTION OF of an itme that is listed in the budget, which is your next item #9, PROJECT p~omotion of redevelopment projects, and that budget does carry an item OBJECTIVES: of $20,000 for that purpose. Vice Chairperson Teglia stated that she would like to bring the Redevelopment Agency up-to-date on what is taking place at PIBC the last four meetings. There are two questions: one question has to do with membership. One of the members at this time, Mr. Dean, is in the process of spinning-off a portion of his project area to another company, Lincoln, the commercial section of this project area.. Mr Dean would like to remain on the PIBC Board. Direction was given to the staff to explore what kind of possibilities would allow for that. They proposed that the original members be considered charter members and that they be in for life; that they continue to pay $2,000/month membership fees; that there be another category of membership called the associated member, which would be a non-voting member; would allow for bringing in some other entitles perhaps some tenants within the project area at a lesser dues structure. It might be that perhaps one of those associate members representing the entire associate membership might sit on the board, and might even have a vote; but none of that has been absolutely set at this time. The other consideration has to do with dues. The original agreement that the City signed specified that we were going to do certain things, all of which we did and we funded. There were other things that in the future would happen that we were not going to be a part of in terms of funding; one of the things we said that we were not going to fund was the Executive Director, we felt that that was the respondibility of the participating developers. Bottom line, they are each contributing $2,000/month and they would like $24,000/year guaranteed from the City and/or Redevelopment Agency. There was some discussion between public and private dollars and what we could and could not do. But those are the two matters that ! need to have some kind of direction on and I think it should be discussed before we go further with respect of our membership and/or funding, Discussion followed concerning the charter vs. associate member and voting vs. non,voting members, 6/12/85 Page 2 [] I I ~ I AGENCY Chairman Haffey stated that the mone~ the Cit~. gives to the PIBC is PROMOTION OF public monex.~ mones, that the other, people ~!¥e is ~prlvate oney, and RROJECT there is a real differenCe in that resPonSibility. I do not mind making BJECTIVES: the $24,000 contribution, but I do believe that we should have greater control over those expenditures, and if the Board would see fit, and the PIBC Board would sit fit to allow us to have-more control over the expenditures, ! have no problem with the $24,000. It was the consensus of the Board that this be relayed to the PIBC by Vice Chairperson Teglia. 1985-86 Executive Director Birkelo stated that referring to ~the $24,000 to the PIBC, AGENCY there is an item in the budget for $20,000 Business/Economic Development BUDGET: and he feels that it would be more appropriate for the additional $4,000 to come from City advertising account for citywide events that have not yet been specified. It was moved by Member Addiego and seconded by Vice Chairperson Teglia that the 1985-86 Redevelopment Agency Budget be adopted, The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. AGENCY Executive Director Birkelo informed the Board that this item was presented ORGANIZATION: several meetings ago; and thought we might ask if the Agency have any objections to the way it is outlined. You will notice it parallels our City organization in every respect,but does clearly identify some additional duties for the Planning Director to perform in the organizational function. Chairman Haffey had concerns that as we create additional titles and give additional responsibilities, even though they have always been done in the past, once we take this kind'of action, suddenly they come back to us, that in recognition of these additional duties and responsibilities requires additional monies to pay these individuals. Executive Director Birkelo stated that, as outlined the last time, we have not in the past, and do not intend in the future, to ask for that kind of compensation. It was motioned by Member Addiego and seconded by Vice Chairperson Teglia that the Agency organization be approved, The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. GOOD & WELFARE: Chairman Haffey invited members of the public to speak on matters related to Redevelopment issues. No one spoke. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved by Vice Chairperson Teglia, seconded by Member Addiego and regularly carried that the Redevelopment Agency meeting be adjourned to Wednesday, June 19, 1985 at 5:15 p,m. Motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. Time of adjournment: 7:34 p,m, 6/12/85 Page 3 : Respectfully submitted, Executive Director/Secretary ,/~ i~rman lhe Redevelopment ~ency of the City of South Sar~ ~ancisco Entries of the Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the Board to dispose of the item. Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape, The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the office of the City Manager and are available for inspection, review and copying. 6/12/85 Page 4