Civic Aud and Rodeo Grounds - Barry Tippin 4.8.22_mixdown.mp3

Civic Aud and Rodeo Grounds - Barry Tippin 4.8.22_mixdown.mp3: Audio automatically transcribed by Sonix

Civic Aud and Rodeo Grounds - Barry Tippin 4.8.22_mixdown.mp3: this mp3 audio file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Steve:
On April 19, 2022, the Redding City Council is expected to make a decision on whether or not to declare the Redding Civic Auditorium and rodeo grounds properties as surplus. This is an important decision and members of the community have been very vocal, both in support and in opposition of this land discussion.

Katie:
In this episode of the podcast, we bring back City Manager Barry Tippin to talk about what surplus property means and what options are before the council. We'll also ask questions we've been receiving from the community about the land discussion and get into some hypothetical what if territory? Of course, nothing will be decided until April 19th, and even then the council could decide to take no action.

Steve:
Before we hand it over to Barry. It's important to note that community engagement is vital to this discussion. Please take the online survey link in the show notes, email your council representatives and show up on April 19 to provide public comment. Your voice matters.

Barry:
Hi, I'm Barry Tippin and I am the city manager for the city of Redding.

Katie:
Thanks, Barry, for being with us here today on this podcast to talk about the Redding Civic Auditorium and Rodeo Grounds land discussion that will be coming back before the Council on April 19. Maybe you can just give us a little bit of back story, a 32nd recap on what's happened so far and kind of where we are today.

Barry:
I'd be happy to. So late in the summer of 21, we received a proposal from a group of individuals called the D&D Group to purchase some of the land down by the Civic Auditorium and the rodeo grounds with the idea of redevelopment in some fashion. And before they would do that, they would do a master plan that would have to be approved by the city council. And so as the council moved to consider that, they also decided that the best way forward is to have a series of workshops. And and so we had four workshops as we worked through the issues associated with the properties that we're talking about and also analyzed some new regulations that had come down from the state of California called the Surplus Land Act guidelines from the Housing and Community Development Agency, to determine what we could do and how we would go about doing that. And so we spent a fair amount of time not only analyzing the properties and how they were acquired and how they were, what their disposition was. But we also were analyzing what are the steps to move forward with. And what we've determined is that the council has to make a declaration of surplus land in order for us to have any real conversation about how we might redevelop some of that property down there if we're going to do it through a public private partnership of sorts. And so that's where we're at and that's where we're going to go forward with the council on the 19th.

Steve:
And Barry touched on it briefly, but maybe just to clarify a bit further, why has it taken so long for this discussion to come back before the city council?

Barry:
Yeah, as I mentioned, the Surplus Land Act, it's been around actually for quite a while, but a few years back they made some new laws to, if you will, beef up the requirements for municipalities. And so one of those new requirements is that the city council no longer really has full autonomy to make decisions relative to surplus property that they own. Instead, we have to go through this prescribed process or the process that we have to go through and declare this surplus. And surplus is not the way you would think of a typical surplus. I know oftentimes people think about it like an army surplus store where the army didn't need this stuff anymore. That's really not the case. It could be. But in this case, it's the council fully recognizes and realizes that this property is really valuable and really important to the community. Nonetheless, we still have to move through this surplus property process if we want to have discussions about if we wanted to redevelop the Civic Auditorium and rodeo grounds. And so we paused, if you will, and met with the Housing and community development staff, provided them details, provided them information, gave them a copy of what would be our letter or notice of availability, as well as a copy of the resolution that the Council would be considering to make sure that they agreed. We are following the proper process. They have confirmed that. And so now we're ready to go to the council and have the discussion.

Katie:
What does housing have anything to do with surplus property? Why would the city have to go to HCD to even discuss this? What do they have to do with surplus?

Barry:
Yeah, I'm glad I'm glad you asked that because I probably failed to mention the intent of the law, the Surplus Property Act. The intent of that law has always been that if a public entity wants to sell some land or otherwise lease land for a long term basis, that they should be considering whether or not it's appropriate to build income, eligible housing or park facilities and that and that sort of public benefit sort of project. So that's not new. What's new is that now the state is going to engage and help us, if you will, make. A determination of what's proper for affordable housing or not. The law is very broad and its application and some of its application doesn't make any sense. For instance, we have to go through the Surplus Land Act simply to lease a piece of airport property to build a hangar on. So we just recently went through that process. There's an individual who wants to build an airplane hangar inside the secure area, inside the secure fencing of the airport. But we still have to go through this because obviously you can't build affordable housing along the runway, but we still have to go through the process. And so that's what we're doing here, really. There's not a lot of opportunity, from my perspective, for affordable housing down in this location, but we still have to go through that process in accordance with the state of California.

Katie:
And how does the state make that distinction? So like when you submitted all of this work for the airport surplus property, did the state say, okay, yes, we agree with you, affordable housing isn't necessary here, check. You can build your airplane hangar. Does the state make that determination or does the city make that determination?

Barry:
Yeah, that's a that's a great question as well. It really depends on the situation. So in the case of the airport, what ultimately happens is that the state agrees that it's exempt surplus property, meaning they agree that you can't build affordable housing there. You still have to go through the process. But there's a shortcut, if you will, that they say, yes, we agree it's exempt surplus property, so then you get stopped there. In the case of the Civic Auditorium and rodeo grounds, we don't have an exemption available to us. And so what that means is that once you declare it surplus, you actually have to notify governmental entities and a pre-defined list of developers that you're intending to do something that's with this property and perhaps work with a public private partnership or other means of a long term lease so that they have an opportunity to come in and say, Well, we'd rather build affordable housing there. If they do do that, there's no real obligation for the city to sell the property to build the affordable housing. But yet it's just the process we have to go through and the council has to take these steps if they want to explore what alternatives or options might be for the community as it relates to redeveloping the Civic Auditorium and rodeo grounds property.

Steve:
So what are the options before the Council on the April 19th meeting?

Barry:
Yeah, I think what it's important to know is that. On the April 19th meeting. There's really only two. I mean, if we need to break it down, there's two options available for the council. And there's a lot of speculation brewing about what might happen down the road. And I understand that. And I, I myself, having lived here most of my life, like to think about what those next steps might be and what might occur. But but really, we have to make sure that we're staying focused on the steps that are in front of us. On the 19th, the city council. Very simply, either decides to leave the rodeo grounds and the Civic Auditorium property exactly as it is today and do nothing. Or they decide to open a door for exploration of what might be. What might be a redeveloped entertainment venue. What might be a redevelopment area with pathways parks along with entertainment venues? Who knows what? But the decision is, do we even want to open that door? Do we want to peek through that door and see where that path may lead, or do we just want to shut the door altogether and leave everything the way it is? Fundamentally, that's the that's the discussion. That's the decision for the council to make.

Katie:
And so then, just to be clear, if they don't declare surplus property that's closing the door, the land stays exactly as it is. Nothing happens.

Barry:
That's really where we're at now. You know, obviously, the council can always make future decisions to do our own master planning of the area, to try to redevelop it ourselves, to try to go out and get our own $500 million bond, you know, to to redo that whole area. Those those could become future discussions. But given everything that's currently on our plate, given everything that's currently known to us regarding budget capacity, fundamentally the question for the Council is to do nothing, leave everything exactly the way it is today, or start to work down a pathway and explore what could be.

Steve:
And Barry, if the council does declare surplus at the meeting on the 19th, what then? What are those next steps look like?

Barry:
We go down the path of the 60 days, we put out a notice of availability. People can come in and tell us if they're interested and presumably because of a lot of factors, there's not going to be a lot of interest. Or if there's interest, it's not going to be easy to actually reach a deal. There's just a lot of complicating factors that don't really lend itself to development of affordable housing, keeping in mind that the city, through its housing agency, does a lot of affordable housing development with developers. So we do have a very, very good idea of what it takes to develop affordable housing. This property is not well suited for that. So let's just presume for a moment that nobody shows up within that 60 days at that point, then the council can decide whether its next steps are. It could decide it wants to masterplan it itself. It could decide it wants to leave it exactly the way it is. It could decide that they want to put out a bid for whatever could become next. So the council's options really open up greatly after that 60 day period, presuming nobody shows up. And so that's what I mean by we get to explore, we get to find out what options may exist, and the council gets to make those decisions along the way. And I'm sure that the Council will want to make those decisions with a robust amount of public comment and input.

Katie:
Barry, this might feel like a redundant question because I feel like you've covered it, but if they declare surplus and affordable housing has to be part of that notice, if somebody comes in in 60 days that says, yes, I'd like to build affordable housing in this city, says it's not a good idea, but I think it's a great idea and I want to build affordable housing. The city can say, Well, no, we don't want affordable housing, but do they get first dibs on that property? Like, is there a world where the city can say, No, we don't want affordable housing, but we want to do something else with it. And we can just say no to the developers of affordable housing and say yes to something else.

Barry:
If somebody shows up within the 60 day period of time and says, I think this property is a great spot for affordable housing, we have an obligation to negotiate with that party for 90 days in addition to all of the expense. Now keeping in mind affordable housing is massively subsidized by governmental entities, the city of Redding being one that would subsidize affordable housing. And we would have no interest of of subsidizing affordable housing in this location. But there's other complicating factors in terms of this land. Portions of this land are our designated parklands. There is a tremendously burdensome process that is required to convert it to affordable housing. So during that 90 days and that negotiation, my assumption is that there will be no available agreement to be had. So it will just fall away and the council can do what they choose to do. In the event that somebody says, Yeah, I'm good with all of those, I'm going to pay top dollar. I'm okay with that. I still want to build affordable housing. The council then would say, I'm presuming. Yeah. We don't want to move forward with that. We like the Civic Auditorium and rodeo grounds as they exist today, better than we like redeveloping this property into affordable housing. Therefore, we withdraw our offer and we're going to do nothing. So we we always, in our opinion, have the ability to off ramp to do nothing.

Katie:
I think a lot of community members, that is a concern of theirs. And I don't know, for me being a community member, it's nice to know that the city still has options to off ramp if something is proposed that they didn't like.

Steve:
What do you say to community members that want this property left completely alone?

Barry:
I certainly understand that and I have some of that sentiment myself. I guess I would I would modify that from for me to say we need to discuss what that means. Because when I've talked to popes, I'd like to leave it exactly the way it is. But then you say so you love the Civic Auditorium as a concert venue, for instance, exactly as it is today. Well, no, I'd like to have a more modern facility, or I'd like to have better parking or better exits and entrance into that that area. You really have to dive down just like anything, right? Communication is hard. And so some of the people that want it left exactly the way it is, I mean, as an entertainment venue, not that they're opposed to a redeveloped facility that would house both the rodeo grounds and the Civic Auditorium in one facility. Others truly mean that they love the Civic Auditorium. They love the blocky concrete. They love the rodeo grounds exactly the way it is made with a little bit of facelift put on it. And I get that that's some people really feel nostalgic about that. And I understand that my comment to that as a city manager is those are old facilities and they're going to have to have a lot of money put into them in some way in the not too distant future. And we get to that point. We're going to have to figure out how to do it. And likely it's going to still be with public private partnerships, whether it's nonprofit partnerships or whether it's for profit partnerships, we won't be able to afford it on our own. And at that time, guess what? We're going to have to go through the surplus property process to have that conversation as well. So either way, whether we do it today or ten years from now, I think we're going to be going through this process to try to figure out how to do major renovations on those facilities.

Katie:
And Barry, maybe you can touch on public private partnerships just for a second for for those who might not be familiar with that term or not exactly know what that means. What are we talking about here?

Barry:
Yeah, that's that's a great question as well. So public private partnerships and those those are where the public entity partners up with a non public entity to accomplish something and those non public entities could be a profit organization or they could be a for profit organization. And, and a great example of that is a market center downtown. So the new apartment facility downtown between Yuba and Butte streets that is occupied today, that was a public private partnership. The city of Redding is a partner in that with grant funds and other funds that have contributed to redeveloping that block. And on the other side, there's a developer that is gone out and gotten financing, both tax credit financing, as well as private financing to bring to the table. And together, we can actually build a really amazing facility that we couldn't do separately. So we wouldn't have the ability or capability to do that as individuals. But together, we're more powerful and we can do more. And that's a super common theme out there for entertainment venues, NFL stadiums, which is way bigger than what we're talking about. But those are often done through public private partnerships. In fact, if there's sports nuts out there, that's the discussion, the exact discussion that's going on in Buffalo, New York, about a new stadium for the Buffalo Bills. They're asking for about $800 million of taxpayer money to go towards the new NFL stadium. That's a public private partnership. Neither one of those groups really can do it on their own, but together they can make it happen.

Steve:
There's been quite a bit of feedback and discussion across social media on this topic and there's a myriad of questions that come in and we thought we'd ask you a couple of those here. So first off, is the city selling the sundial bridge as part of this land discussion?

Barry:
Absolutely not. Send a bridge is an icon. There's just zero chance the city is interested in selling the sundial bridge. We love the sundial bridge. We think it's a wonderful amenity to our community. And just quite frankly, because of the grants and stuff that were received for that bridge, we couldn't even sell it if we wanted to.

Katie:
And what about riverfront access? We've heard people speculating that they'll either lose access to the to the river trail right there or lose access to that Turtle Bay boat launch right there. What what's going on with that piece?

Barry:
I think there's two components to that piece. Number one, I think I can speak for the city council to say that if anything, any plan that moves forward has to enhance access to the riverfront. The riverfront is just a wonderful amenity that we have and that we have not as a community taking full advantage of. So anything that would happen here has to actually enhance or improve riverfront access, not diminish it. That's number one. Number two, is that going back to grants that we receive, the state has provided us grants and those grants require that we actually maintain facilities and maintain access to the facilities like boat ramps and other things for years to come. And so those two components, number one is it makes just perfect sense that we maintain river access. And two, we have legal requirements to maintain that access and maintain those facilities. So there is no discussion, interest or stomach, frankly, to do anything but enhance riverfront access for the community at large.

Steve:
Another one that comes up is the theme that the land was originally given to the city with the intention of use by the people not to be sold for monetary gains for the city.

Barry:
Yeah, the city received this property through donations and some purchase years and years and years ago with the intent that it's for the community. I agree. And anything that I would be involved with and making recommendations to the city council is that the city would maintain significant authorities over this property. And people might want to know, well, how does that happen? I said, Well, kind of look at the Civic Auditorium today. So we own the underlying fee property, we own the property and we own the building, but we've given the lease a ten year lease off to advance Redding, to run the Civic Auditorium and to maintain the inside of the building. They essentially have control of the building and we have control of the land and the land surrounding the Civic Auditorium. And that's a great partnership that we have. And so something similar could be in the future where we have the land and we do a long term lease, for instance. But that lease has required elements in terms of what the facility is, how it's operated, who has access to it, when they have access to it. All of those things can be developed within a lease agreement, and all of which would be developed with public input and within the public eye. The council can't approve such a thing without having public hearings for everybody to come and comment on. And so I would say that there is no intention, I think, of anybody to lose control if it means we're going to lose access.

Katie:
And what about those who say that the rodeo grounds and the civic auditorium is going to get torn down and something completely different? It's going to be built in its place?

Barry:
Yeah, that may happen. The rodeo grounds and the Civic Auditorium, as I mentioned earlier, are old facilities and they need some upgrading. If not now, then in the not too distant future. And so if you can envision perhaps a facility that is in the basic location of those two facilities but can house both events, they can have concerts, they can have rodeos, they can have sporting events. You could have any number of events in that facility because instead of two separate facilities, we have one single facility. Then I think that we've achieved everything that happens down there today and more.

Steve:
And very on the topic of community engagement, there's been a series of workshops around this topic. There's been surveys. There's an active survey on Cityofredding.org/landdiscussion page right now, but we do get the feedback. Maybe feeling like this is a foregone conclusion. It's not going to matter what they say in a survey or even what they say at a council meeting and decisions are being made.

Barry:
Yeah, I'd say absolutely not. It's not a foregone conclusion, but I would say is that oftentimes we have comments that are comments based on erroneous information or just a misunderstanding of what's happening. For instance, I mentioned about surplus property and what it is and what it isn't. Just because you call a surplus through the required state definitions and state terminology, it's not the same as what we would think of surplus in our everyday life. The council that I've heard on the dais is that they have every intent to maintain as much possible control as they can on this property, whether they keep it in perpetuity as it is to. Eight. Or if they are moving down a path to see if it can be redeveloped. So I think that people who are providing input based on a full understanding of this process, which is difficult, I get it. It's the surplus property process through the state of California is difficult. But comments that are associated with and based upon a full understanding of really what is happening and how we're going to get there, I think are more than encouraged. Other than that, I would encourage questions and questions and questions because the more information we put out and the more we can discuss about what's actually happening and how we're actually proceeding this, the better off we all are. Now, there's always going to be those individuals who, despite that, just still feel like it's going to be railroaded and nobody's going to listen. I understand that that's sort of the societal climate that we're in today, and I acknowledge that. And I want to do everything I can to help facilitate the discussion through that or despite that atmosphere out there. But I just really encourage people to provide us the input. I really encourage them to understand and learn so that their input is all the more valuable for us.

Katie:
And Barry, if you'll indulge one more kind of hypothetical question here that we seem to pop up on, on social media, there's a concern that if the city decides to surplus the property and then decides we don't want anything to happen with this property, we've surplus it, but we want to leave it alone. There's a concern that five years from now, ten years from now, a different city council could look at that property differently once it's been surplus. What's the answer to that?

Barry:
Anytime councils change, directions can change. I think first and foremost, we have to understand that the council members who are put on the council are voted there by the people. What the people's desire is will drive city council decisions. And so oftentimes people separate those two things and I think it's important that we put those together. Council members are elected by the people of this community, and council members very much want to work within the rules and regulations of government, but to accomplish the goals that are placed upon them by the members of this community. So if a council five years from now decides that they're going to try to act upon a previously declaration of surplus property, you know, I would assume that the community either will make sure that that council understands that's not their desire, or we'll make sure that the council understands that that is their desire. And so we have to rely a little bit upon the form of government that we have in this country and in this county. But I also would say that we have to report back to HCD on an annual basis as to properties that are surplus every year. And so if this property is going to maintain its surplus status, we have to report that every year to HCD. And while the law is new, there's a real good chance that if you try to do something quote unquote tricky five years from now, that there's a good chance the state of California may take exception to that. But again, it's new and I don't have that as a definitive just knowing how government works, they might find that objectionable.

Katie:
Some other comments are the land should just go back to the indigenous population. What do you say to that?

Barry:
I would say I totally get that sentiment, especially if the thought process behind those comments is that we're going to do something totally different. We're going to build housing down there or something of that nature. In other words, we're going to just absolutely revamp that area down by the Civic Auditorium, turn it into something totally different without any access to people. That just makes much more perfect sense than that in that realm. But if we're talking about taking what we have and just making it better with maybe enhanced access, I think that benefits all of us. And I would say that the indigenous population needs to be at the table, they need to be with us. There's it's just an important element culturally for our community. And I think that we are all trying to actually bring that into our everyday operations. We're trying to do better in our general plan in recognizing what development means in the city and and what component of that cultural element and how we need to work with the Native American peoples in our on our area through proper consultation. And then also whatever happens also has to go through complete environmental processes through the California Environmental Quality Act. And that act requires us to work with the Native American in a historical context and other cultural contexts through consultation. And so I get that sentiment and I think it's well intended, and I think the city has every intention to do everything we can to make sure that indigenous history is recognized in any fashion. We move forward.

Katie:
So if there's anything else that you want to hit or touch on.

Barry:
This is a complicated topic. The government state of California requirements on top of city requirements on top of emotional feelings and ownership of the area from a public perspective makes this one of the more difficult items that the council has been faced with in the last several years. And so we're doing everything we can to help let the community know what's involved and what's at stake and where we're headed. To that end, I am hopeful that people will feel comfortable contacting my office through email or phone call and try to receive more information. And the number here is 2254060. And so that we can answer your questions and we can help with your formation of your ideas and formation of your opinions. We have a lot of information that's on our city website. In a recent press release, I said, I am more than available to work with large groups, organized groups, whether it be Rotary or Lions Club or other groups. Church organizations come and talk with them and help explain where we're at and what's behind where we're headed, and with the full intent of being as transparent as we possibly can and helping educate the community on a very complicated topic. What I would leave you with is a challenge, and that challenge is help create the vision of what we could have along the riverfront where the current Civic Auditorium is. As I mentioned, we we're going to have to do something down there at some point in the future. So set aside all of this context of surplus land and set aside government process and bureaucracy, and just for a moment, sit back and try to visualize what could be down there to benefit the community. And I think when you start at that point and then move backwards and try to help the city navigate our way there, I think we're all in a better space.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp3 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you'd love including automated subtitles, advanced search, transcribe multiple languages, collaboration tools, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.