CCMIN070588 - Laserfiche WebLink

REPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY item 13a Proposed Wording for Initiative Relating to Adoption of Redevelopment Plan Mr. Beougher presented his report (SR 88:302) dated July 5, 1988, regard- ing this matter. Mr. Thomas Pico, 795 Neal Place, stated he felt Council has made a good faith attempt by allowing opposing comments and by appointing opponents on the citizens committee so that both viewpoints will be represented fairly. He stated his understanding of the initiative wording falsely gives the impres- sion that creating a redevelopment agency will have no cost to the taxpayer. He is in favor of an initiative on the ballot and allowing the voters of Pleasanton decide whether another layer of bureaucacy is needed, however, he felt the wording of the initiative should be clear to indicate there is a cost to redevelopment. He has previously asked who picks up the tab, and hasn't received an answer. He proposed that the wording be amended to add additional comments as follows: "however, creation of the agency will result in the di- version over the next twenty years of a minimum of $67.8 million tax revenues from taxing agencies that may be forced to increase fees or reduce services to cover the cost of planned projects". Councilmember Brandes stated the verbage is not set in concrete, and there will be pro and con comments allowed on the ballot. He felt the wording should be simple and easy to understand. Mr. Thurman Caudill, Augustine Street, stated he is in favor of dissolving the redevelopment agency tonight; he felt it is a distorted agency. Mr. Gene Finch, 649 Main Street, spoke in support of a redevelopment agen- cy. He felt it will greatly enhance the downtown area by improvements that can be accomplished through a redevelopment agency. He stated he has some concerns about taking this issue to the public; he would like Council to con- sider alternative methods to do capital improvements in the downtown area. Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 W. Angela Steet, stated he would like to have an election on the redevelopment agency, then asked why is the agency really needed in the first place. Councilmember Wilson stated he felt the people who want this to go to election should pay more attention to the wording there is no way it would be approved the way it is written; this is advisory. He stated he objects to to the initiative ballot because Council has not seen a complete package; why vote on wording that is advisory only? Also, this will be taking money from other agencies. He strongly objects to asking the people to vote on something that Council does not know what it is at this time. Councilmember Brandes stated when he asked Mr. MacDonald for the wording it was not intended that it be the exact wording that would be used on the ballot. He stated there is conflict among the people, an election will get a real pulse of how the community feels about the redevelopment plan. He stated the downtown area is vital and he does not want to do improvements in a piece- meal fashion, it needs to be a coordinated effort such as Hacienda Business Park was done. He felt there was no harm in having it on the ballot, the op- ponents agree to it. He stated there is a potential for $50-70 million that could be used for improvements to the downtown and this should be addressed through a redevelopment agency. - 15- 7-5-88