CCMin 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PURSUANT TO PART 1.9 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CIT MINUTE ORDER 11-143 That the City Council adopt a resolution determining that the City of Redwood City will serve as Successor Agency should the Redevelopment Agency of Redwood City dissolve RESOLUTION No, 15141 DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY WILL SERVE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY SHOULD THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF REDWOOD CITY DISSOLVE That the Agency Board adopt a resolution approving the Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule through December 1, 2011 pursuant to AB1x 26 RESOLUTION No 11-07 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS PAYMENT SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34169(g) (AB1x 26) City Manager Bell introduced the item briefly touching on the reason why this matter is before Council. He then introduced Bill Ekern, the new Community Development Director who then proceeded to share details about the specific three legal actions before Council (presentation on file). He provided specifics on each of these actions which included dissolution act of the RDA, voluntary continuation of the RDA which will lead to the city making some formal payments to the state, and finally having the agency comply with enforceable obligations. He clarified that these actions are preparatory and will ultimately depend on what the courts rule on the matter. Mr. Brian Ponty, Finance Director, provided a financial overview sharing the two scenarios and the implications of each case. He noted that there is clean up legislation that might impact the outcome but his conclusion from the analysis is that in the current situation it is best to retain the Redevelopment Agency but keeping in mind those expenses will need to be looked at. One Council Member inquired about the current obligations and how these impact the programmatic commitment we might already have incurred. Various Council Members commented on the fact that they had mixed feelings on this because of the tax increment and how it lessens the monies that go to schools and other services. However, these two Council members felt they needed to support the recommendation and do the best we can with our limited options. One Council Member would like to know what is the cost benefit of keeping the RDA. Mr. Ekern said that is something that will need to come back as there is a delta on expenses and revenues. Another Council member would like to continue the conversation and he likes that the action taken tonight does not preclude Council from changing course. Ms. Thompson interjected and clarified that action one and two are preventative measures and in reality Council will need to await the outcome of the legislation because nobody knows what will happen. Another Council Member did not appreciate the fact that as the Governor was rolling out this proposal he placed the JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 Page No.382