Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 2012-01-25 SPECIAL MEETING (..,.:� MINUTES gy w i w o REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Meeting to be held at: MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2012 6:30 P.M. CALLED TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Boardmembers: Addiego, Matsumoto and Mullin, Vice Chairman Gonzalez and Chairman Garbarino. Absent: None. AGENDA REVIEW None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of January 11, 2012. 2. Motion to approve expense claims of January 25, 2012. 3. Submittal of Annual Redevelopment reports to the State Controller as required by California Health & Safety Code 33080.1. Motion— Vice Chair Gonzalez /Second— Boardmember Mullin: to approve the Consent Calendar. Unanimously approved by voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Resolution of the Board of the Redevelopment Agency of South San Francisco approving the Declaration of Advance Forgiveness between the Agency and the City of South San Francisco. Finance Director Jim Steele presented the staff report explaining the state law provisions enacted prior to the dissolution of the RDA requiring the Board formally approve a resolution acknowledging any loans forgiven in the past 20 months. The one loan forgiveness taken action on was the parking garage on Miller Ave. Council did take action to forgive that loan and must formally acknowledge that through the resolution as is required by state law. Boardmember Matsumoto asked because we forgave the loan to the Parking District, that means the money comes out of RDA. Director Steele confirmed that was correct. Boardmember Addiego commented on a report where Director Steele had estimated the amount of money to come to the General Fund as a result of the dissolution of RDA. He recalled the number as $1.6 million. He also asked if Director Steele had estimated numbers for the county and school's portion. Director Steele could not state that was the correct amount with certainty because it was estimated prior to the dissolution language. What he could say was the General Fund share would be roughly 15.7 %, the School District share was approximately 40% and the County's was roughly 25 %. Boardmember Matsumoto asked City Attorney Steve Mattas about these figures because she had recalled a meeting they attended where it was said the District would not see any money from this aside from the monies owed to them. Attorney Mattas explained the schools had been promised money pursuant to Proposition 98 but had not received it, now under AB 27x1 would be getting what it was promised under Proposition 98, not additional money beyond the Proposition 98 guaranteed funds. Essentially, the State had been backfilling the money owed to schools and the State's desire to terminate the RDA was really to stop having to backfill that money. It was a modification adopted to address the state budget issues. Boardmember Addiego understood it as the dissolution would not really net the 40% new dollars for the District. Attorney Mattas explained there was a short term situation under AB 27x1, approximately one (1) year, where the additional tax increment that will be collected would not be counted against Proposition 98 funds. Director Steele, stating from memory, believed it was the opposite. Meaning, the first year, the state funding would be relieved and in future years the school would receive additional dollars above what they had been receiving through RDA. There was also an additional time SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JANUARY 25, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 2 period, while RDA winds down, where these obligations get taken off the top from the tax dollars that would flow. Motion — Vice Chair Gonzalez /Second — Boardmember Addiego: to approve Redevelopment Resolution No. 1 -2012. Unanimously approved by voice vote. 5. Resolution adopting the Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule for January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012. Finance Director Jim Steele presented the staff report and walked the Board through the amendments made to the list of enforceable obligations. He stated this was an ever evolving discussion between the Attorney's office, finance department, Economic and Community Development and RDA staff on how to do the calculations. The Resolution before the Board this evening complied with AB x126 which was upheld by the CA State Supreme Court, laying out a process for the dissolution of RDA throughout the state of California. One of the provisions was, before February 1, the Board has to adopt a listing of enforceable obligations coming due over the next six months. When the successor Agency has bills to pay over the next six months, they must be on this list in order for them to be paid. An amendment process will follow, but the list needs to be in place so when the City takes over as Successor Agency, it has a list of obligations it will be allowed to pay off of. This list will also be submitted to the state, the county and to the Oversight Board. Boardmember Matsumoto stated some items had already been transferred to the City and asked what happens if the Oversight Board does not accept that. As a city are we responsible for that? Attorney Mattas stated the statute provided the obligations of the Successor Agency were limited to the revenues of the tax increment that is available to the Successor Agency. The City would not be responsible for any debts of the Agency. The Successor Agency would use tax increment and former Redevelopment Agency resources to pay its obligations. The Oversight Board could not force the City to pay what the Agency could not. When it's formed, the Board is looking at (1) whether the payments are on the list and (2) whether or not they qualify as enforceable obligations. If it turns out they don't qualify, they won't be allowed to be paid by the Successor Agency, but that does not mean the City has to pay them. Boardmember Addiego asked if this was the final action as the RDA. Attorney Mattas stated yes, absent adoption of the Padilla bill which at the moment was stuck in committee and needed to be adopted by February 1. Technically the Agency could convene as late as January 31 and take further action but there was no plan to do so. Motion — Boardmember Addiego /Second — Vice Chair Gonzalez: to approve RDA Resolution No. 2 -2012. Unanimously approved by voice vote. SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JANUARY 25, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 3 Boardmember Addiego felt it was important to highlight the Agency's accomplishments to the community in an effort to celebrate the spirit of Redevelopment done in our City, which was kept true to the spirit. Boardmember Matsumoto still had questions regarding the list. She asked why there were discrepancies between the list provided in the packet and the amended list handed out this evening, giving the Housing Set Aside obligation as an example. Director Steele stated he could go through the changes. The example given was just a matter of human error in which the total was not brought forward for half a year of obligations. The substantive changes include the Shorenstein Agreement ( "SKS "). It wasn't expected that $29 million would have to be expended by June, however it needed to be footnoted so that the Board realized there was an obligation that should be set aside with available cash for the full amount. This is an obligation for the phase I and II. At the first submittal, just the items that were thought to be expended were given, but focus was changed to what staff felt should be set aside regardless of whether they are expended between now and June. The case should be made for preservation because this is an obligation already set in place. Boardmember Matsumoto asked where that money was coming from. Director Steele explained that it came from the $96 million in cash currently available from the Agency. There's $60 million identified on the schedule for the next 6 months. Moneys are tied up in debt service, SKS, etc. Boardmember Matsumoto asked if that's how we are going to pay our obligations. Attorney Mattas and Director Steele stated that was correct. Boardmember asked that once decided by the Oversight Board, would it be possible to retain some of the uncommitted sites. Attorney Mattas stated that was correct as it related to low and moderate housing funded properties. If Senator Steinberg's bill passes then we are allowed to hold onto the low and moderate housing funds to the extent that we have obligations, for example 636 El Camino. For the other items on the schedule, we are able to keep the funds necessary or keep in reserve. We still have an absolute right to take the money necessary out of tax increment. Boardmember Mullin asked if the Oversight Board's determinations were final or is there a state level review. Attorney Mattas stated there was some review by the State Controller's Office that he suspected would be done if the boards started making decisions that weren't in line with AB 26x1. The other way a City could deal with the Oversight Board would be to bring an action if they felt any decision was inconsistent with the law if the city thought it was necessary. SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JANUARY 25, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 4 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Chairman Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 6:43 p.m. Submitted by: Approved: Anna M. Brown, Deputy City Clerk Ric and A. ar arino, Chairman City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JANUARY 25, 2012 MINUTES PAGE 5