pages: CityCouncil/2010-03-03.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-03-03 | 3 | Commissioner Gilmore stated the funds being taken by the State would not be paid back. Commissioner Tam inquired why the City would willingly pay. The Economic Development Director responded the City does not have a choice; stated the legislation imposes the death penalty on the redevelopment agency if payment is not made; the agency would be restricted from bonding and carrying out any new activity and would have to operate at 75% of administrative costs, which are typically less than 10% of annual expenses; operating at said level would prevent the agency from doing anything except making reports, preparing audits and doing accounting; although the State is taking money, none of the reporting requirements, which are very expensive, are being absolved. Acting Chair Matarrese inquired whether non-payment would lead to staff just doing reporting, rather than making improvements, to which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated every agency activity would be affected and there would have to be a reduction in staff; redevelopment agencies throughout the State have banded together and are suing to challenge the constitutionality of the take; hopefully, the matter will be resolved before payment is due in May; however, if the case is not over, the funds have to be set aside and could not be used. Speaker: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). The Interim Executive Director stated money is being loaned from the housing set aside to make the payment; said money will have to be paid back; the agency will be living pay check to pay check after payment is made; there will not be a cash fund balance; what comes in will be spent; there are no funds remaining if the State comes after the funds again; the agency cannot bond on its 80% set aside money, which is leveraged and committed to other projects; another State take would effectively shut down the agency, which would only exist to pay old bills. Commissioner Tam stated there is a perception that redevelopment takes funds away from schools; requested an explanation of how redevelopment relates to schools. The Interim Executive Director stated pass-through agreements are negotiated when redevelopment agencies are formed; the City of Alameda has made all other agencies whole; the other agencies still receive the same amount that was received before the redevelopment project area was formed; the School District is made whole and is given an amount for housing. The Economic Development Director stated Alameda makes other agencies whole; other agencies also get 2% growth; the redevelopment agency is a local board making decisions about the needs of the community; the agency participated in Ruby Bridges School and participates in things other than the housing and capital funds that are passed through to the School District; schools have to be part of redevelopment; Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 March 3, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-03.pdf |