HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2011 0706 CC REG ITEM 09CTO:
FROM:
DATE:
ITEM 9.C.
OF MOORPARK, CALIFORWt
City Council Meeting
MOORPARK CITY COUNCI12t 7-G ao /1
AGENDA REPORT ACTION:
Honorable City Council
David C. Moe II, Redevelopment Manager
June 24, 2011 (Council Meeting of 7/6/11)
/. G
SUBJECT: Consider California Redevelopment Association and League of
California Cities' Request for Financial Support for Legal Services
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On January 10, 2011, Governor Brown announced his desire to eliminate
redevelopment agencies as part of a package of proposals to address a budget shortfall
of $25.4 billion in the FY 2011 -12 California State Budget.
California Redevelopment Association ( "CRA ") and the League of California Cities
( "LCC ") have sent letters to every redevelopment agency executive director, requesting
that their agency promptly send a check to help finance part of the cost of the litigation
that is being planned against the state if the redevelopment proposal remains in the
budget. Each agency's requested contribution was based on the pro rata share of total
tax increment in 2008 -09. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark's
( "Agency ") requested contribution was $400.00.
On March 16, 2011, the City and Agency joined the CRA and the LCC in their fight
against the state on this matter by contributing the requested $400.00 to help finance
the lawsuit, if the abolishment of redevelopment agencies is included in the State FY
2011/12 Budget. The $400.00 contribution was funded by the City.
The Senate and Assembly approved the latest budget proposal, SB 87, which counts on
$1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies under previously passed trailer bills, AB 1 X 26
and 27. The two redevelopment trailer bills were sent to the Governor who has
promised to sign them.
Assuming the Governor follows through on his promise to sign AB 1 X 26 and AB 1 X 27
(which may have already occurred) CRA and the LCC are prepared to take legal action
to prevent the unconstitutional proposals from becoming law.
CRA and the LCC expect the legal battle with the State to be costly. On June 17, 2011,
the City and Agency received a second request from CRA and the LCC for an additional
21
Honorable City Council
July 6, 2011
Page 2
$400.00 contribution to the Legal Defense Fund (Exhibit A). The second requested
contribution is based on the same formula as the first request as mentioned above.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is recommending contributing the requested $400.00 amount to the Legal Defense
Fund and providing staff with an additional authorization of $1,100.00 for a total
authorized contribution of $1,500.00. The amount can be funded from the existing
budget appropriation for legal services. Staff will return to the City Council for
consideration if CRA and the LCC request any additional amount exceeding $1,500.00
in FY 2011/12.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Provide additional financial support in the not to exceed amount of $1,500.00 in FY
2011/12 to the CRA and the LCC to assist with the lawsuit against the State of
California to prevent the abolishment of redevelopment agencies.
Attachment — Exhibit A
22
EXHIBIT A
LL E AG li t✓ ��� California Redevelopment Association
OF CALIFORNIA p
CIT I ES gggg Redevelopment Building Better Communities
1400 K Street, Suite 204, Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone (916) 448 -8760 FAX (916) 448 -8760
Friday, June 17, 2011
Mr. Steve Kueny
City Manager /Executive Director
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Steve:
With the passage of ABX126 and ABX1 27 by the Senate and Assembly on June 15th, the Legislature has
expressed its intent to eliminate redevelopment agencies in California and to violate Proposition 22 by
requiring agencies to give up substantial revenues to remain in existence. While we do not know if the
Governor will sign these bills, CRA and the League of California Cities must prepare a legal challenge to
overturn this legislation should it become law, including filing a request for a stay with the court in order to
maintain the status quo while the matter is litigated to conclusion. We have been preparing for this
contingency and have a legal team on board and ready to take action.
We expect this to be a costly legal battle with the State. In anticipation that pending legislation might
prevent your agency from making any additional payments to our legal defense fund, we write today to ask
you to make an additional payment to our legal defense fund NOW so that we will have sufficient funds on
hand to pay for the costs of these legal actions. We greatly appreciate that your agency paid your
assessment to the Legal Defense Fund invoiced in March, but we believe this second payment is needed to
cover costs.
The amount of this second Legal Defense Fund assessment is based on the total amount of tax increment
that your agency received in FY 2008 -09. The fee for your agency is $400.00 (See enclosed invoice.)
Thank you for your support. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
23
Christopher McKenzie
John F. Shirey
Executive Director
Executive Director
League of CA Cities
California Redevelopment Association
23