Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.A. - Page 10 <br />making some formal payments to the state, and finally having the agency comply with <br />enforceable obligations. He clarified that these actions are preparatory and will ultimately <br />depend on what the courts rule on the matter. Mr. Brian Ponty, Finance Director, provided <br />a financial overview sharing the two scenarios and the implications of each case. He noted <br />that there is clean up legislation that might impact the outcome but his conclusion from the <br />analysis is that in the current situation it is best to retain the Redevelopment Agency but <br />keeping in mind those expenses will need to be looked at. <br />One Council Member inquired about the current obligations and how these impact the <br />programmatic commitment we might already have incurred. Various Council Members <br />commented on the fact that they had mixed feelings on this because of the tax increment <br />and how it lessens the monies that go to schools and other services. However, these two <br />Council members felt they needed to support the recommendation and do the best we can <br />with our limited options. <br />One Council Member would like to know what is the cost benefit of keeping the RDA. Mr. <br />Ekern said that is something that will need to come back as there is a delta on expenses <br />and revenues. Another Council Member would like to continue the conversation and he <br />likes that the action taken tonight does not preclude Council from changing course. Ms. <br />Thompson interjected and clarified that action one and two are preventative measures and <br />in reality Council will need to await the outcome of the legislation because nobody knows <br />what will happen. Another Council Member did not appreciate the fact that as the <br />Governor was rolling out this proposal he placed the schools and the cities in adversarial <br />positions. This Council Member will support these actions because of all the impressive <br />things the RDA has done for Redwood City. <br />M/S Gee /Pierce to introduce the ordinance. Motion carries unanimously by electronic <br />vote. <br />M.S Pierce /Seybert to adopt the resolution. Motion carries unanimously by electronic <br />vote. <br />M/S Gee /Pierce to adopt the Agency resolution. Motion carries unanimously by <br />electronic vote. <br />(Between 7:17 p.m. and 7:40 p.m. the City Council addressed this matter on the agenda. For the <br />full content and discussion please check the archived stream at http:Hredwoodcity- <br />ca.granicus.com /MediaPlayer. Php ?view id =2 &clip id =1170 <br />8. PUBLIC HEARING(S) — <br />A. Appeal of the certification of an Environmental Impact Report for <br />Laurel Way Project <br />Recommendation: <br />1. Grant the appeal; <br />2. Direct staff to revise the EIR to remedy the two deficiencies it has identified. By <br />consensus Council also directed that, after staff has remedied those deficiencies, the <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 <br />