DATE OF MEETING:            November 9, 2005


TIME OF MEETING:              7:00 P.M.





Councilmembers Present:          Andy Houghton, Mayor

                                                            Wayne Brown, Mayor Pro Tem

Forrest Flynn

Daniel Irving

Larry Stevens           


Councilmembers Absent:            None


Staff Present:                                  Susan Price, City Manager

                                                            Richard Crabtree, City Attorney

Gloria Shepherd, City Clerk

Gerry Gray, Division Chief

                                                            Paul Nanfito, Police Captain

                                                            Charlie Mullen, Planning Director

                                                            Margaret Van Warmerdam, Finance Director

                                                            J D Ellison Sr., Building Director/Official

                                                            Mark Barthel, Interim Public Works Director

                                                            Nik Reikalas, Parks & Recreation Director

                                                            Tessa Pritchard, Human Resources Director


Venita Philbrick led the Pledge of Allegiance at the request of Mayor Houghton and the assemblage joined in.









M/S/C Flynn, Brown to approve Consent Calendar.


AYES:                                                          Brown, Flynn, Houghton, Irving and Stevens

NOES:                                                         None

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:                   None












Susan Price, City Manager, reviewed the staff report and gave staffís recommendation that the City Council approve a supplemental budget appropriation of $7,000 from Development Impact Fee (DIF) funds, finalize the revised Needs List and Land Use Categories Proposed for Assessment of Transportation Development Impact Fees, and direct staff to schedule a final Public Hearing on the Development Impact Fee Study.


Additional discussions of the Development Impact Fee Study were on the following dates, October 19, 2004, June 7, 2005, September 6, 2005, October 4, 2005, and October 12, 2005.  These dates included the Consultants presentation of the Study and draft needs, Councils adoption of the Transportation Capital Improvement Plan, Preliminary Development Impact

Fee Study and methodology, Public Hearing, and City Council Special Meeting on the Study with the approval of the Single Family & Multi-family Unit Development Impact Fee Schedule.


The departmentís needs lists and adjustments were presented to the City Council for review.


 Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, reviewed the demographic information that went into the report.  The City does not want to underestimate growth as it will then become deficient in the funding sources and impossible to recover from. If the result is that you come in short, then you donít collect the fees and the listed improvements donít get done because the population didnít increase.  California population grew by a half a million people last year and they are moving throughout the State.  Local communities have been increasing each year and the City of Red Bluff is showing projected growth trends. 


Councilmember Stevens asked about the growth pattern of Red Bluff over the last 10 years and it was explained that it has been on a slow level with last year showing about 1.5%.  With the amount of housing being built over the last couple of years, the City is foreseeing that this will far exceed that figure very quickly.


J D Ellison Sr., Building Director/Official, reviewed data that showed that in 2003 there were 17 homes built, 2004 there were 95 new homes built and as of the current date there have been 134 single family homes with two projects in the making that include a 57 units and 52 units. There area 34 more homes in the process of gaining approval for construction.  


Susan Price, City Manager, explained that the first item on the needs list was the Police Facility that presented two alternatives for the Police Station and included information on costs.  The first proposed site was the Kmart area at $15 million dollars and the second site was on City owned property estimated at $9 million.  Regardless of the site location choice, the City will still need to set money aside for a Police Station that will be operational for many years.


Paul Nanfito, Police Captain, mentioned the removal from their list of the environmentally safe indoor shooting range.  Instead, they will opt to remodel the existing range that over the next 15 years will be in need of some major repair.


Susan Price, City Manager, explained that the total cost allocated for the facility to new development for both the Police Station and the remodeling of the range is 49.55% and shows that it is not all allocated to new development which is not going to pay 100% of the cost but half.


The purchase of 10 marked and unmarked additional vehicle costs were based on new vehicles that will be needed for increased staff for the population growth that is expected. 


The SWAT Van was given to them from the Air Force and will soon need to be replaced. The Animal Control Unit is going to continue to be a carrier in the back of a pickup for now.  Additional animal control vehicles are needed in the future. The computer system is based on a new Police facility which would include an entirely new computer aided dispatch and main system for office staff.


Eric Magrini, Peace Officer Association Representative, presented and read a letter of support to the City Council for the Development Impact Fees.


Susan Price, City Manager, mentioned the three phases previously discussed by City Council that directed the moving of the Police Department into a facility, moving City Hall down to provide more space and expandng the Fire department into either one or two more facilities.


The Emergency Services Act has requirements for Police and Fire facilities that will include substantial costs whether it is a new facility or a renovation of the existing facility.  The current parking lot is half owned by the County and will not be sufficient with any growth.


John Elko, concerned citizen, commented that after retirement he rarely sees a patrol car on the street although he sees many parking violations and that if there were more patrol cars on the street then maybe there would be less need for an office.


The percentages through the entire report are that if the need for the facility is 100% driven by new development you will see a 100 %.  The new development is driving the imposition of new development impact fees.  If there is no new development then there will be no facility expansion.


Councilmember Stevens agreed that it would be better to over estimate when it came to the need for animal control rather than underestimate.


Councilmember Irving commented on the offsetting revenues being uniformly zero and City Manager, Susan Price, explained that the City looks for grants to offset funding or other potential funding sources.  Police funding sources are the most difficult to get unless you can get a Congressional or State Legislative appropriation.  The Police Study shows that several other jurisdictions have been able to use Legislative State appropriations or funding by utilizing redevelopment funds.  Many projects are partially funded by development impact fees imposed to be able to collect funds necessary to build the needed facility. 


The collecting of DIF dollars can be used to apply for low interest loans for some of the improvements.


Gerry Gray, Fire Division Chief, reviewed the cuts to the Fire Department needs list, which reduced the needs list by 67% from the original because the entire focus was placed on the existing City Limits based on no growth.  No items are based on 100% funded on new development and Fire Department services are driven by population density and response time. One concern is that the Standards of Cover document shows they are no longer in compliance with the four-minute response time dictated by City Council in 1993. The influx of traffic has contributed greatly to this.  Placing stations in key locations to minimize the response time is what this approach is all about.


Nik Reikalas, Parks & Recreation Director, reviewed the 53% cuts to the Parks needs list that included eliminating the new Community Center, an extra Softball fields, and various other changes. The total cuts were about 1.3 million from the original list.  Parks & Recreation fees are not charged to Commercial or Industrial Development but only to Residential Single and Multi Family Development.  The six softball fields originally proposed were projected over 15 years and would grow as population expands.  Park use is at its highest in the summer time and the maximum times proposed were potential recreation use.  A formula is provided to break down this usage and its appropriateness.  The trails are to be funded by a grant rather than these fees.


Susan Price, City Manager, reviewed the City cuts to the needs list which reduced the expansion cost of the City Hall building to $340,000, which she believes is severely under funded. There is a need for City storage facilities, the Corp Yard expansion, Library books purchased and contributed to the local Library.


The storm drains and the streets are a large need in the City. The developers install their infrastructure within the development, but the City provides the transportation to the outlet and ties the existing storm drains to the new one. The City provides the main conduit to the developments.  The storm drains are funded 100% by new development, if there is no new development there is no cost.  The fee goes into a pool of money where the Council can choose to accomplish projects as they come up. In addition, the Interim Public Works Director struck miscellaneous trucks and equipment from the list. Transportation is the largest portion of all the fees.


A Concerned Citizen disputed the figures that Charlie Mullen, Planning Director, used in his projection of growth in the community.


Bill Moule, Citizens Committee member, spoke about the Citizens Committee that was formed outside the Chamber of Commerce, and they are willing to support an increase in the Development Impact Fees as long as they make sense.  There is also a request that it mitigate existing citizenís expenses due to new development, based on reliable costs that taxpayers would bear, absent the User Fee.  The Business Community will not tolerate fees based on future growth predictions that triple the cost of government through 2020.  They feel the Councilís decision on the final release of the Wal-mart Environmental Impact Report until a fee schedule is passed, is nonsense.  They are hoping the Council will call for a Citizenís Advisory Committee and it would be called to work with staff and or with Council to resolve the issue of Development Impact Fees.


Charlie Wright, Citizens Committee member, spoke about the request to reject and modify the fees as they will harm all businesses small and big. The study report reveals the flaws and out of touch conclusions.  He supports some concepts that soon get off track.  The needs list were accepted by the Study without the consensus of the business community.  Population projections were suspect and he felt there was nothing to support the figures.  He felt the Report should be set aside and that they all need to re-discuss the needs lists with the City.  He felt that the fee structure would jeopardize the annexation proposed for Shasta College site. He feels the fee structure needs a monitoring provision with a review and report. He asked that a reduced rate be given for infill parcels.


Ron Clark, DDS, Citizens Committee member, passed out a copy of developer fees and schedules in Anderson.  He feels the fees proposed would quadruple current and commercial fees.


Steve Judson, Citizens Committee member, appreciates the efforts of the revised needs lists, but feels there is need for more changes. He questioned the needs of the Parks and Recreation or results of the figures of the study.  He called several of the Public Works Directors in the North State and they indicated that funding is very cyclic and shouldnít be considered in one flat rate. He also mentioned that these funds for pre-paving streets or other street projects have to show a nexus in the report as to the location. 


Larry Lalaguna, Concerned Citizen, asked that the City Council revisit the residential fees as he feels that the report contains misinformation.


Joseph Durrer, Tehama County Association of Realtors, urged the Council to allow 60 days for Public review and comments.


Chuck Hayden, Concerned Citizen, requested on behalf of the Red Bluff Trails United, that the Council not eliminate the Class 1 trails or work with volunteers for grant monies. He also asked that there be a procedure to waive development fees for projects such as the Homeless Shelter or at least reduce them.


Venita Philbrick, Concerned Citizen, asked that the process of the trail open space component of the Bikeway plan be sped up.


Tom Guitterez, Concerned Citizen, asked that the $7,000 fee for making these changes to the Study not be paid and that the Council allow a comparison of all reports adopted and reference the statistics of them by others.


A 10 minute break was taken at this time.


Lance Hall, Wal-Mart employee, asked if sales increases generate tax increases that help with new development.  It was explained that those fees goes into the general fund and the majority of the sales tax goes into public safety.  He asked if the increases could be looked at in 5-year increments on behalf of the small businesses.


Shell McPherson, Pacland /Wal-Mart Store representative, asked that the Council give clear direction tonight for the Consultants and staff to finalize the DIF, for ultimate resolution and adoption necessary for proposed commercial projects such as Wal-Mart.


The EIR on the Wal-Mart project depends on the nature and the scope of the changes that are made.  The assumptions that the EIR relied on were based on the Capital Improvement list as it was approved by the City Council.  The assumptions may change with the changes to the Needs Lists.


Mayor Pro Tem Brown was concerned about so many conflicting numbers and opinions. As a Councilmember, the responsibility is to the City and that it stays a float, and that developers can continue to develop.  He feels that the developer fees will be raised, but maybe not as much as they have been presented.  He feels the Needs List may need to be reviewed and would like to see a concept of gradual increase.  He does not like the method of the percentage which is applied to development and would like more clarification with the formula for applying the percentage to development.


M/S/C  Stevens, Flynn to accept the Citizens Committee be the group that works with the City Manager, City Staff, and two Councilmembers to look at this in a realistic term to make sure that what they do is right and bring back to Council a recommendation as to the formulary and needs list for a final review.


AYES:             Councilmembers:            Brown, Flynn, Irving, Houghton and Stevens

NOES:                                               None

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:            None


Councilmember Flynn wants to work together to accomplish the right decision.


Councilmember Irving appreciated all of the comments, input, and felt that the review should emphasize the Transportation component and clear up the double dipping accusations.


Mayor Houghton expressed concern that this should not be drawn out like the User Fees issue and that it could be done in a timely fashion.


An initial proposal from the Citizens Committee identifying issues would be helpful to the Council before going into the Ad Hoc Meeting and the names of the Committee will be brought to the City Staff.


Councilmembers Stevens and Flynn volunteered to attend these meetings.


Councilmember Stevens asked that the Wal-Mart project not be delayed by this.


Councilmember Brown apologized for his misunderstanding from the last meeting regarding the 100% issue.





At 9:50 P.M. Mayor Houghton adjourned the meeting to November 18, 2005 at 7:00 P.M., in the Red Bluff City Council Chambers.


s/b Andy Houghton



s/b Gloria Shepherd

 City Clerk