►
From YouTube: San Bruno City Council Meeting January 10, 2012 10c.
Description
10c. California Supreme Court's Decision to Eliminate Redevelppment Agencies
B
Thank
you
and
good
evening,
honorable
mayor
and
city
council
about
13
years
ago
in
1999,
the
city
council
formed
san
bruno
redevelopment
agency
and
it
was
passed
by
a
vote
and
since
then
the
Redevelopment
Agency
has
done
a
number
of
incredible
things.
First
and
foremost,
the
crossing
was
created
through
a
specific
plan
for
the
process
that
was
funded
through
redevelopment
over
300
units
of
affordable
housing
or
subsidized
by
by
by
redevelopment
funds.
B
The
retail
was
also
subsidized,
the
medians
on
el
camino
and
a
number
of
infrastructure
and
road
projects
were
also
created
and
not
to
mention
the
many
facade
improvements
downtown.
Unfortunately,
in
June
late
June
of
last
year,
the
state
legislature
passed
two
bills.
They
passed
a
B,
1
x,
26
and
a
B
1
x,
27
I'll
just
call
em,
maybe
26
and
27.
B
Essentially
what
they
did
is
a
b-26
eliminated
redevelopment
agencies
in
a
b27
gave
an
opportunity
for
cities
to
continue
the
redevelopment
agencies
if
a
big
payment
is
made
and
if
and
they're
on
a
more
limited
basis,
probably
a
you
notice.
Seventy
eighty
percent
basis
of
what
redevelopment
agencies
were
beforehand
the
California
redevelopment,
Association
and
League
of
California
cities
shortly
thereafter
sued
the
state
stating
that
both
a
b-26
and
a
b27
raat
unconstitutional
because
of
Prop
22
I,
think
the
City
Council
remembers.
B
Prop
22
was
a
recently
that
overwhelmingly
passed
by
the
voters
to
stop
the
state
from
raiding
local
funds
and
the
the
court
considered
this
and
unfortunately,
the
end
result
was
the
worst
case
scenario
for
cities
and
redevelopment
agencies.
What
court
decided
was
a
b-26
was
constitutional.
It
was
consistent
with
prop
22,
and
the
reason
being
is
that
the
state
was
not
actually
rating
local
funds.
B
They
were
eliminating
redevelopment
agencies
completely
and
since
the
state
created
redevelopment
agencies,
they
were
allowed
to
take
him
out
now
why
this
is
that
why
this
is
the
worst
case
scenario
is
that
the
court
also
decided
that
a
b27
was
not
constitutional
and
that
it
did
violate
Prop
22.
So
it
essentially
said
redevelopment
agencies
you're
eliminated,
but
you
have
no
way
to
resume,
so
the
end
result
is
as
of
februari.
First,
a
b-26
states
that
redevelopment
agencies
are
no
longer
in
effect
here.
B
What
the
state,
what
a
b-26
allows
the
cities
to
do
is
declare
themselves
the
successor
agency.
There's
a
number
of
advantages
to
do
this
and
no
real
downside.
I've
listed
the
advantages
in
the
staff
report.
I
won't
go
over
those
one
by
one,
but
the
overall
picture
is
that
it
retains
the
most
local
control
possible,
both
from
the
redevelopment
operation
side
as
well
as
the
housing
sign.
B
There
are
a
number.
Unfortunately,
although
those
two
things
are
clear,
there
are
a
number
of
things
in
a
b-26
that
are
not
clear
and
it's
a
very
fluid
situation
and
changing
on
a
day-to-day
standpoint
and
there's
I'd
say
the
major
reason:
why
number
120
s
a
b-26
when
was
first
created,
I
think,
was
created
in
in
quite
a
rush
and
number
two
AV
26
was
created.
Thinking
that
a
be
27
was
going
to
be
in
effect,
and
that
cities
would
continue
to
operate
under
a
be
27.
B
So
now
that
all
the
cities
and
the
state
and
all
the
attorneys
associated
with
redevelopment
are
looking
at
a
b-26
there's
a
lot
of
holes
in
it
and,
on
a
day
to
day
basis,
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
those
holes
are
and
how
that
will
fiscally
and
operationally
impact
the
city
of
San
Bruno.
Just
going
to
give
you
a
couple
examples
here,
currently
there's
a
big
question
on
what
happens
about
the
properties
that
agency's
own,
who
takes
over
those.
You
know
the
current
right
now.
B
It
says
that
the
agencies
have
to
get
rid
of
the
properties
at
they
own.
Now
the
current
interpretation,
our
understanding
of
it
is
that
means
it
goes
to
the
agency,
that's
that
it
makes
most
sense
to
take
control
of
them.
So
in
most
cases
that
would
be
the
city.
Obviously,
whether
or
not
we
but
we're
able
to
control
those
properties
has
huge
fiscal
and
operational
impacts.
That's
something
we
need
to
get
clarified
and
bring
back
to
the
City
Council.
The
second
has
to
do
with
administrative
costs.
B
B
I'll
give
you
one
more
example.
Currently,
as
a
b-26
is
written
below
market
rate,
housing
funds
that
you
have
in
the
bank
we
have
about
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
in
the
bank
would
be
dissolved.
They
would
be
gone
no
more.
There
would
not
be
local
controls
of
the
control
of
those.
Fortunately,
we
just
got
an
email
about
a
hour
ago
that
a
bill
has
passed
the
Housing
Committee.
B
So
hopefully
that
comes
into
fruition
soon,
and
we
have
at
least
some
good
news
to
report
back
to
the
City
Council
few
things
that
you
should
know
about
that
are
going
on
behind
the
scenes.
Cra
and
the
League
of
California
cities
are
essentially
taking
a
two-prong
approach
to
this.
The
first
in
immediate
action,
they're
taking,
is
trying
to
get
that
februari
first
date,
push
back
to
give
City
some
breathing
room
and
to
be
able
to
really
clarify.
B
What's
the
contents
of
a
b-26,
is
there
and
hopefully
work
on
some
fixed
to
a
b-26
to
let
redevelopment
agencies
continue
in
some
form
and
that's
the
second
prong
strategy.
It
probably
won't
be
called
redevelopment.
It
may
be
called
something
else
it
may
be
more
focused
than
it
was,
but
the
the
CRA
and
the
league
are
really
trying
to
work
for
some
to
get
some
city
to
get
cities
some
tool
to
do
the
economic
development
things
that
redevelopment
did
well.
B
So
hopefully,
we'll
have
better
news
to
report
on
this
coming
up,
but
as
it
is
right
now,
the
news
is
that
redevelopment
agencies
dissolve
as
a
februari
first
and
that's
the
action
that
we
have
to
go
with.
We
will
be
bringing
back
in
item
additional
updates
at
the
next
at
the
24th
January
24
city
council
meeting
and
there's
also
other
procedural
events
that
we
have
to
go
through
at
that
meeting
as
well.
That
will
take
forward
at
that
time.
So
I
could
take
any
questions.
Any
questions
all.
C
Right
there
13
years,
I
think
it's
what
was
painful
about
it
is
that
we've
seen
in
front
of
our
eyes.
You
know
in
a
few
of
us,
have
SAT
up
here
and
we've
made
decisions
that
have
improved
this
community
and
it's
just
really
painful
to
think
that
there's
still
plans
and
that
we've
had
to
change
and
even
eliminate
some
plans
because
of
us.
C
What
I
don't
understand
is
you
know,
and
we've
heard
through
the
media
and
things
that
the
legend
of
Legends
laterz
of
you
know
they're
apologizing
and
then
because
they
didn't
intend
for
27
to
do
that,
but
for
for
the
for
the
lay
people
for
the
people
that
don't
know
that
route
that
don't
understand
the
complexities
of
redevelopment,
the
bottom
line
is
sacramental
did
not
get.
Is
the
state
does
not
get
as
much
as
your
property
tax
dollars?
C
If
redevelopment
is
in
place,
and
so
by
eliminating
redevelopment,
they
get
back
their
lion's
share
of
your
property
tax
dollars.
So
my
question
would
be
the
only
people
that
can
change
a
b-26
or
you
know
some
form
of
reinstating
redevelopment
would
be
the
state
legislature
sleigh
chur
right
and
it's
all
going
to
be
predicated
on
how
much
money
they
can
keep
from
our
property
textile
correct,
correct,
correct.
So
so
it
doesn't
look
good
from
the
local
standpoint.
A
B
The
way
the
lot
the
a
b-26
was
written,
those
existing
contractually
obligated
aspects
of
redevelopment
are
able
to
continue.
So,
if
you're,
if
you
have
a
loan
that
you
have
to
repay
that
the
agency
owns,
if
you
have
the
housing
payments
that
go
to
the
affordable
housing
at
the
crossing,
those
are
able
to
continue,
and
your
successor
agency
makes
those
payments.