HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1982/12/21
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Tuesday, December 21, 1982 Council Chambers
7 :30 p.m. City Hall
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox; Members Malcolm, Moore, McCandl i ss,
Scott
MEMBERS ABSENT None
STAFF PRESENT Excecutive Di rector Cole, Community Development
Director Desrochers
ITEM NO.1 - RESOLUTION NO. 403 - APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA AND THE SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
INDEMNIFYING THE AUTHORITY AGAINST LOSS OF
SERVICE FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD
In answer to Member McCandliss' question concerning the $77,500 budgeted for
the waterl i ne reallocation project, Di rector of Community Development
Desrochers explained that the $77 ,000 also includes sewer 1 i ne but not the
other uti 1 iti es; the $5,000 coveri ng the cost of abandonment is part of the
$77 ,000. The funds for thi s project have been appropriated through the
parking structure bonds.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER SCOTT, the readi ng of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously.
PROGRESS REPORTS
Member McCandl i ss commented that the status reports for publ i c rel ati ons were
not timely. The Agency is not always clear when projects have come to
completion or at what stage of completion the project is at. She asked that
the Community Development Di rector, as the contact person wi th the public
relations firm, prepare a report every two weeks informing the Redevelopment
Agency of current activities, proposed deadlines and future activities of the
public relations firm.
SUPPLEMENTAL INSERTS (San Diego Home and Garden Magazine)
Member Scott discussed he was not in favor of purchasing these inserts. Mayor
Cox remarked that the Agency will pay one-half of the costs of the inserts and
the Business and Industry Development Commission funds will pay for the other
half.
Adjourned Redevelopment
Agency Meeti ng -2- December 21,1982
Mr. Desrochers reported that the Business and Industry Development Commission
met on December 7 and voted to (1) solicit membership in the Economic
Development Program for the City, and (2) to support the advertisement and to
go along with the recommendation of the Public Relations Consultant to
purchase the pamphl ets. Counci 1, in setti ng up the Busi ness and Industry
Development Commi ssi on, allocated $10,000 as a good faith effort wi th the
provi so that there be an equal fund raising effort by the private sector.
Intent was they would pay one half of the $1,850 ad and the City would payout
of the $10,000 that has been appropriated to the Business and Industry
Development Commission the other $925 of that ad cost.
Chairman Cox added that the Agency should set up guidelines and criteria for
the Business and Industry Development Commission. If they are going to raise
funds to promote the City of Chula Vista, they should have some latitude as to
how those funds should be used.
Member Moore expressed hi s opinion regardi ng the supplement from "an
outsider's viewpoint" adding that the cost (20t per copy) was reasonable, but
whether 5,000 copies is proper, too much or too few is another thought.
Member McCandliss indicated that the Agency has embarked on its first
potential joint effort, but because of missignals and miscommunication it has
fallen apart and is no longer a joint effort. She hoped that in the future
the Agency would be given the time and opportunity to work with the Commission
on these thi ngs.
Chairman Cox said he conceived this as a partnership. If the Commission is
going to raise funds, they should obviously have a great deal to say in how
those funds are to be spent. Unfortunately, thei r recommendati on was not
presented to the Agency in a timely fashi on; however there were some time
constraints that were created in regard to the decision making. The
Commission feels strongly about it and will be putting up half of the funds.
MSUC (McCandliss/Scott) to obtain a status report from the Community
Development Di rector every two weeks on the status of the publ ic relations
firm.
MEMBERS' COMMENTS
Member McCandl i ss stated she felt there was sti 11 merit in havi ng a report
prepared in comparing Marina Village and Seaport Village since both are based
on that same prlnciple as the Bayfront development.
MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) to have staff prepare a report comparing Marina
Village and Seaport Village, their successes and failures, and causes thereof.
Member Malcolm stated this type of report cannot be done by City staff
adequately. It goes beyond what they are capable of doing and the Agency may
have to hire a private firm.
Adjourned Redevelopment
Agency Meeti ng -3- December 21,1982
Member McCandliss said she has already talked with the members of the Chamber
of Commerce and some of the material has al ready been compiled and is
available.
ADJOURNMENT at 8:50 pm. to the meeting of January 13, 1983 at 7:00 p.m.
WPC 0233C