HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05071985 - 1.52 r
1--C►;�2
TO: _ REDEVELOPMENT,-AGENCY ��y�tt
t.JlJl i l ra
FROM: Phil Batch.elor, �S}a
Executive Director la
DATE: April 24 , 1985 " "1
SUBJECT: Legislation : Senate Bill 1039
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a position of: support,. if- amended,..of SB 1039 by Senator_._.
Montoya enacting restrictions on new redevelopment projects. The
recommendation is qualified by the request to amend the bill by:
1. Deleting provisions requiring redevelopment project
areas to qualify as a distressed community or
"pocket of poverty" under federal UDAG criteria; and
2. Lengthening the permissible term of redevelopment plans
to 35 years.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Potentially very positive. This bill will presumably reduce the
abuse of redevelopment and the excessive diversion of property
taxes from local taxing agencies to redevelopment.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
SB 1039 has several major provisions:
1. Existing law defines a blighted area as an area that is
characterized by one or more of several specified
conditions which cause a reduction or lack of proper
utilization of the area to the extent that the area
constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic
burden on the community which cannot reasonably be
expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise acting alone.
This bill would, in addition, require that the area
be located within a city or county that qualifies as a
distressed community or a "pocket of poverty" within
the meaning of federal regulations establishing
criteria for urban development action grants.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION OF AGENCY COMM TEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES)
ACTION OF AGENCY ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
LL UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOP-
MENT AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Redevelopement Agency ATTESTED
P l a n n i n g PHIL BAT HELOR, AGENCY SECRETARY
Public Works
C S A C7�I�rt.
Auditor (0-
M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY
1
To: Redevelopment Agency
From: Executive Director
Subject: SB 1039
April 24 , 1985
This bill would provide that the total area included
within the project areas in a city shall not exceed 25% of
the entire area of the city, unless approved by the Board
of Supervisors.
The bill would also prohibit the County Auditor, unless
directed by the Board of Supervisors, from allocating
or paying any portion of any additional tax increment
revenues which would otherwise be required to be allocated
when the total assessed valuation of the taxable property
in all of the project areas in all of the cities in the
county and the agency in the county exceed, in the
aggregate, 7% of the total assessed valuation of all of
the taxable property in the county, subject to any
indebtedness incurred prior to January 1, 1986.
2. Existing law does not limit the term of existence of a
redevelopment plan.
This bill would provide that the term of existence of a
redevelopment plan shall not exceed 25 years, unless that
limitation would impair the rights of holders of bonds.
3. This bill also imposes certain auditing and reporting
requirements, limits on administrative expenses, and it
requires city' s to consider benefit assessment districts
in the formation of projects.
This bill puts some very strongbut reasonable limits on
redevelopment, where the system has been abused in the past and
some agencies have gone unchecked.
However, some provisions of the bill are excessive. The bill
should be amended to delete requirements . that project areas meet
Federal Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) criteria as a
distressed community or "pocket of poverty. " Many legitimate
projects, including the Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment
Project, would not have qualified under this criteria. Moreover,
it may eliminate consideration of a number of other projects,
effectively halting the County' s own redevelopment program.
Additionally, the limitation on the term of redevelopment plans
at. 25 years is arbitrarily short and should be extended up to 35
years.
TAP:krc