Todd Stermer, CMC
City Clerk
City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721 • (559) 621-7650 • FAX (559) 457-1106
From: Office of the City Clerk
Date: December 13, 2024
Subject: Public Comment Accepted by Council President
The following attached public comments were received and accepted by the Council President during the December 13, 2024, Special Meeting. The comments were accepted as part of the record pursuant to Rule No. 11(C).
Office of the City Clerk
Public Comment Received
From:
To: ; Clerk
Cc:
Subject: COMMENTS: 12/13/24 - ID 24-1699: Tax-Sharing Agreement Date: Thursday, December 12, 2024 4:30:39 PM
Attachments: 12.12.24 INVEST Fresno Tax Sharing Agreement Letter.pdf External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good afternoon, Clerk Stermer:
I am writing today on behalf of INVEST Fresno, a coalition of Fresno residents, businesses, and community organizations committed to building a diverse and sustainable economy in Fresno, to express our support for a tax-sharing agreement between the City of Fresno and County of Fresno.
The lack of a tax-sharing agreement, since its expiration in 2020, has resulted in significant challenges and uncertainty, not only for the region’s economic development but also for the city and county of Fresno. Such an agreement would represent a significant step toward fostering regional cooperation, promoting continued growth, and addressing fiscal challenges for the benefit of all residents.
We appreciate t
he Council's time and consideration and respectfully urge the Council to approve the proposed tax-sharing agreement for the benefit of all residents.
Thank you,
--
Ben Granholm
Executive Director
INVEST Fresno
www.INVESTFresnoCA.com
INVESTFresnoCA.com
December 12, 2024
Annalisa Perea, President Submitted via Email
City Council
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street,
Fresno, CA 93721
RE: SUPPORT: ID 24-1699 – City and County of Fresno Tax Sharing Agreement
Dear Council President Perea and Councilmembers,
I am writing today on behalf of INVEST Fresno, a coalition of Fresno residents, businesses, and community organizations committed to building a diverse and sustainable economy in Fresno, to express our support for a tax-sharing agreement between the City of Fresno and County of Fresno.
The lack of a tax-sharing agreement, since its expiration in 2020, has resulted in significant challenges and uncertainty, not only for the region’s economic development but also for the city and county of Fresno. Such an agreement would represent a significant step toward fostering regional cooperation, promoting continued growth, and addressing fiscal challenges for the benefit of all residents.
A tax-sharing agreement has the potential to bring numerous advantages to both the city and the county by reducing unnecessary competition between jurisdictions and allowing both entities to focus on collaborative economic development initiatives. By aligning priorities, the city and county can work together to attract investment, create jobs, and strengthen the local economy.
Furthermore, such an agreement would help address the financial inequities that often arise when one jurisdiction bears the costs of infrastructure, public safety, and other services while the other benefits from the resulting tax revenues. By sharing revenues, both the city and county can ensure that growth is managed equitably and sustainably, supporting balanced growth and development.
In addition to economic benefits, a tax-sharing agreement would improve land-use planning and reduce conflicts over annexation. Without the pressure to annex land for revenue purposes, the city and county can focus on thoughtful, strategic development that prioritizes community needs. This would also alleviate potential litigation and legal disputes that may arise in the absence of such agreements, saving valuable resources.
We appreciate your time and consideration and respectfully urge the Council to approve the proposed tax- sharing agreement for the benefit of all residents.
Sincerely,
Ben Granholm
Executive Director
Public Comment Received
December 13, 2024
Mr. Andrew Janz, City Attorney
City of Fresno
Fresno City Hall
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: December 13, 2024, Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item ID 24-1699: Objections to CEQA Findings and Statement of Other Issues of Concern for the Administrative Record Dear Mr. Janz:
I am writing to raise multiple substantive concerns about Agenda Item ID 24-1699 on the December 13, 2024, Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda, posted yesterday.
It appears the City is misusing a Special Meeting emergency process primarily employed during the COVID 19 pandemic emergency period, for calling for a meeting on a mid- December late Friday afternoon for a non-urgent agenda item, with little public notice or real opportunity for the public to review, respond and factually engage the massive policy issue implications and potential environmental impacts associated with the Agenda Item ID 24-1699.
The CEQA finding: CITY OF FRESNO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING OF NO POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT – made by applying the CEQA Section 15601 (b) (3) common sense exemption to the proposed MOU adoption - is specious, unreasonable, and inapplicable.
Certainty is not demonstrated by the City “that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” The effects of the MOU do potentially lead to damages to the environment in the SEDA geographic area in numerous ways, and creates unmitigable impacts related to other General Plan priority development areas (Downtown, transit corridors, West Area Neighborhood and Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan areas), and thwarts of purpose of many General Plan goals and polices for balanced growth, inclusive environmental quality, and fair treatment.
The proposed MOU potentially increases the City share of property taxes for supporting the public improvement costs of developing and sustaining its massive, contingent, and still unadopted SEDA specific plan project - that has been assessed by a draft EIR (still in review and revision via new consultant contract extended through June 2025) - that so far clearly demonstrates that numerous serious environmental impacts cannot be mitigated by the SEDA plan as proposed. SEDA infrastructure cost analyses the City says have been completed by consultants (staff comments 12-5-24) have not been released for public review and comment.
Numerous requests over several years by the public for the City to use its fiscal impact model developed for the City by Economic Planning Systems to assess long-term fiscal impacts of development on the City's General Fund and public service delivery sustainability for the entire city geography - have not been responded to.
The proposed MOU also appears to create a special favor for large land owners and developers in the SEDA geographic area, and commercial interests nearby to SEDA, who would benefit from significant new roof tops, at the expense of the differentiated and unfair treatment by the MOU of other City of Fresno annexation growth areas, specifically those potential annexation areas in Fresno City Council Districts 1, 2 and 3.
The proposed MOU potentially significantly reduces the fiscal benefit and thus feasibility of infill development and alternative development opportunities in other General Plan priority areas such as Downtown, transit corridors, West Area Neighborhood and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan areas. Thus, increasing negative environmental and physical impacts of significant deleterious accumulated urban decay, blight and historic underinvestment in these important areas of the city - as demonstrated by the Fresno Urban Decay Analysis https://www.greenfieldcoalition.org/, and potentially reducing future public and private affordable housing and economic development investments in these areas as well.
In summary, the proposed MOU potentially significantly imbalances Fresno's growth pattern and sustainability with significant resulting environmental impacts, favors the SEDA growth area over and inappropriately and inequitably differentially treats other Fresno growth areas, all of which should be comprehensively assessed before the proposed MOU is adopted.
Thank You.
Keith Bergthold, CEO
Regenerate California Innovation, Inc.
Fiscal Agent for Greenfield Coalition:
CC:
Mayor’s Office
Fresno City Council Members
Fresno City Clerk
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department
Patience Milrod, Attorney
Dillon Savory, Executive Director, Fresno, Madera, Tulare, Kings Counties Central Labor Council
Public Comment Received
From:
To:
Subject: Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item ID 24-1699.
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 11:16:53 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
City Attorney Janz,
I just learned of this meeting just hours before this meeting. Don't you believe community input on something that has the potential of possible billions of dollars of taxpayer money being allocated deserves our input?
The SEDA plan has so many environmental issues and implications for other development that need to be comprehensively assessed before this MOU is passed that it would be a disservice to all the citizens of this area.
Please suggest that community input take place before this is brought forward for a vote.
Stephen Sacks
Public Comment Received
From:
To:
Subject: Objection to Agenda Item ID 24-1699
Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 11:36:26 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear City Attorney Janz -
I am deeply troubled that the City Council is holding a vote on SEDA with no real public notice to residents of Fresno and no time to review what will be voted on. A decision of this magnitude cannot be made without feedback from the public.
This feels underhanded.
Timothy Kutzmark
Rev. Tim Kutzmark
Minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Fresno
"May the longtime sun shine upon you,
all love surround you,
and the pure light within you
guide your way on."
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
From:
Subject: Letter to Fresno City Attorney RE: Objections to December 13, 2024 Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item ID 24-1699- Related to CEQA Findings and Other Issues of Concern for the Administrative Record Date: Friday, December 13, 2024 2:19:41 PM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Dear Mr. Janz,
I know that this letter is very late, since in less than an hour, at 3:00 PM, there is a Fresno City Council Special Meeting.
Regardless, I want to go on record seconding everything that Keith Bergthold, CEO of Regenerate California Innovation sent you earlier today.
I close, citing Keith's final paragraph as a succinct
summary of why the MOU should not be
adopted:
"the proposed MOU
1. potentially significantly imbalances Fresno's growth pattern and sustainability with significant resulting environmental impacts,
2. favors the SEDA growth area over and inapprropriately and inequitably differentially treats
other Fresno growth areas, all of which should be comprehensively assessed before the proposed MOU is adopted".
Thank you,
Jim Grant, member
Social Justice Committee
St. Paul Catholic Newman Center
Public Comment Recieved
Public Comment Recieved
Fresno Community & Economic
Development Partnership
December 13, 2024
Mr. Andrew Janz, City Attorney
City of Fresno
Fresno City Hall
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Subject: December 13, 2024, Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item ID 24-1699: Objections to CEQA Findings and Statement of Other Issues of Concern for the Administrative Record Dear Mr. Janz:
As a collective of community-based organizations that represent 15 neighborhoods and serve thousands of families and business owners across Fresno, we are deeply concerned about Agenda Item ID 24-1699 on the December 13, 2024, Fresno City Council Special Meeting Agenda, posted yesterday. We request you do not approve actions 1 and 2 under Agenda Item ID 24-1699.
As Regenerate California Innovation, a CEDP partner, pointed out, “The CEQA finding: CITY OF FRESNO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING OF NO POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT – made by applying the CEQA Section 15601 (b) (3) common sense exemption to the proposed MOU adoption - is specious, unreasonable, and inapplicable. Certainty is not demonstrated by the City ‘that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.’” We believe that the proposed MOU will potentially:
1. imbalance Fresno's growth pattern and sustainability
2. have significant environmental impacts by damaging the environment in the SEDA geographic area in numerous ways
3. more significantly favor the SEDA growth area over other Fresno growth areas
4. create unmitigable impacts related to other General Plan priority development areas (Downtown, transit corridors, West Area Neighborhood, and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan areas)
5. increase the City share of property taxes for supporting the public improvement costs of developing and sustaining its massive, contingent, and still unadopted SEDA specific plan project
6. create a special favor for large landowners and developers in the SEDA geographic area, and commercial interests nearby to SEDA
We believe this CEQA finding should be more comprehensively assessed before the proposed MOU is adopted. The public needs more notice and opportunity to review, engage with, and respond to the policy issue implications and potential environmental impacts in Agenda Item ID 24-1699.
Thank you,
The Fresno Community & Economic Development Partnership Executive Team Andrew Feil, Every Neighborhood Partnership
April Henry, Highway City CDC
Jackie Holmes, El Dorado Park CDC
Esther Carver, Lowell CDC
Anthony Armour, Tower Neighborhood Association
CC:
Mayor’s Office
Fresno City Council Members
Fresno City Clerk
City of Fresno Planning and Development Department