Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.28 <br />meantime, language was included in the formal transmittal to county auditors required Page 2 <br />by March 1, 2009, which stated that the Redwood City Redevelopment Agency <br />("Agency") reserves any rights it may have to withhold the payment of funds to San <br />Mateo County pursuant to AS 1389 or to recover those funds after payment or transfer <br />based on any order or judgment of the Court in the lawsuit. <br /> <br />The ERAF payment is proposed to be made from a combination of sources, including <br />the projected 'Working Capital Balance" for the current fiscal year (estimated at <br />$322,000); as well as a redirecting of allocations for two capital projects-Agency <br />General IIContingency" funds, which has a current balance of $723,165 and the uDT <br />Garage Foundation Upgrade Project", which has a current balance of $650,000. <br />Approval of the budget adjustments will leave a "Working Capital Balance" of just under <br />$186,000; a balance in "Contingency" funds of $323,165; and a balance in the <br />"Downtown Garage Foundation Upgrade Project" of $450,000 (see Attachment 3: <br />Table of Recommended Appropriation Revisions FY 08/09). <br /> <br />The projected "Working Capital Balance" of approximately $186,000 is considered <br />appropriate in that the Agency budget for FY 2008/09 still contains a $500,000 <br />operating reserve, giving the Agency ample resources for other unanticipated <br />expenditures in the remainder of the Fiscal Year, basically May and June of 2009. <br /> <br />The proposed FY 2009/10 budget will contain recommendations regarding restoration of <br />funding to the affected capital projects versus consideration of new capital projects or <br />programs that may be more closely aligned with current Council priorities. <br /> <br />Target Grant <br />The four Sunday afternoon concerts funded by a grant from Target in the summer of <br />2008 were successful enough to warrant an additional grant of $30,500 from Target for <br />the summer of 2009 (see Attachment 4: Target Memorandum of Understanding). <br />Again, this funding is the direct result of Bruce Labadie's outreach work for sponsors for <br />downtown programming and events. Given the current economic downturn, the <br />additional $30,500 in funding for 2009 is a tribute to the successful collaborative efforts <br />of Target and city staff to provide uniquely themed family concerts as part of downtown <br />events and activities. The $30,500 grant is included in "Grant Revenue17, offset by the <br />additional $30,500 in expenditures included in "Downtown Development Programs". <br /> <br />Conclusion <br />State redevelopment law requires a nexus of funding allocations to the elimination of <br />blight conditions identified in both the original Redevelopment Plan and Amendment <br />Area #2, as well as the projects and blight conditions identified in the implementation <br />plans adopted by the Agency over the years. In the case of this proposed budget <br />amendment, that nexus cannot be made. That is the core issue in the lawsuit filed by <br />CRA and the conflict between AB 1389 and state redevelopment law. As things <br />currently stand, the payment is a statutory requirement and must be provided for in the <br />current fiscal year budget. <br /> <br />AL TERNA TIVES <br />Council/Board may direct staff to appropriate funding from other RDA funding /projects <br />to meet the AB 1389 requirement. <br />