HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06122007 - C.119 -TO: '- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: JOHN CULLEN -=
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR n0 -~ i1`s Costa
DATE: JUNE 12, 2007 �'4
.-COR; v County
SUBJECT: LAFAYETTE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ACCEPT notice of proposed amendments to Redevelopment Plan from the City of Lafayette.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Under an existing agreement between the County and the City of Lafayette (the City), the City
is limited to receive $75 million in tax increment revenue under its Redevelopment Plan, excluding
specified exceptions. This amount will not change under the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
This is an informational report. No action by the County is required for the City to proceed with its
proposed Redevelopment Plan amendments.
In 1996, the City and the County entered into an agreement that settled a lawsuit between the two
entities concerning the City's Redevelopment Plan. Under this agreement, the City is allowed to
receive up to $75 million in tax increment revenue to offset allowable expenses, plus additional tax
increment for specified purposes such as to pay for projects that are mutually agreed to between the
City and the County. "Tax increment revenue" is increased property tax revenue that would otherwise
go to the County and other taxing agencies in the absence of the City's Redevelopment Plan.
To date there have been two mutually agreed to projects: the Lafayette Library and Veterans
Memorial Hall. Under the existing agreement, the City is allowed to receive additional tax increment
above the $75 million cap to offset costs associated with these projects. The total cost of these two
projects is estimated at $83.4 million, including debt service on bonds.
The City has notified the County that it intends to pursue two amendments to its Redevelopment Plan
(attached). One amendment would extend the City's power to exercise eminent domain within the
Redevelopment Plan area for an additional 12 years. The City represents that this power would be
limited to the proposed list of public improvements in its Redevelopment Plan and would not be
applied to property on which any persons reside.
The second amendment would be to extend the time period during which the City could issue new
debt to pay for Redevelopment Plan projects from 2015 to 2025. The proposed amendment would
not change the City's current ability to collect tax increment revenue to pay debt service on
Redevelopment Plan debt until 2040. Because the City is projected to reach the $75 million cap on
tax increment prior to 2040, the proposed extension on issuance of debt is unlikely to increase the
total amount of tax increment the City will receive over the life of `ts Redevelopment Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ _S SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF ARD COMMITTEE
�M'1'ROVI? OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOA N APPROVE AS RICOMMI?NDED ;C/ 9�,MR
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THA'r THIS IS A TRUE;
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED
CON'TAC'T: Jason Crapo 335-1021 JOHN CULLEN, K OF THE BOARD O SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY D INISTRATOR
ORIGINATING DEPAR"rML•NT:CAO
CC':
BY EPUTY
' CITY COUNCIL
Carol Federighi,Mayor
Mike Anderson,Vice Mayor
Brandt Andersson,Council Member
LAFAYETTE Carl Anduri,Council Member
SEI7LED ISU I4CORPORATM 1%8 Don Tatzin,Council Member
March 20,2007
Mr. Jason Crapo
Senior Deputy County Administrator
Office of the County Administrator
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-1290
i Subject: Proposed Amendment of the Lafayette Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Crapo:
As we discussed,the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency is considering two amendments to the
Lafayette Redevelopment Plan.
i
The first is Section 403 regarding the use of eminent domain.The Agency's power to use
eminent domain,as described in this section,expired on January 27,2007. The Agency
proposes to reinstate this power for a maximum of 12 years as allowed by Redevelopment Law.
If the Agency's ability to use eminent domain is reinstated, it is limited to the proposed list of
public improvements,project and programs in the Plan and will not include property on which
i any persons reside.
The second amendment is Section 602.5 regarding the deadline by which the Agency is able to
establish or incur debt(except as necessary to comply with the Agency's affordable housing
obligations).The Agency proposes to extend the deadline from January 27, 2015 for the
maximum of ten years,to January 2025, as allowed by Redevelopment Law by finding
significant blight based upon substantial evidence that it cannot be eliminated without
establishing additional indebtedness.
i
i !
Neither of these amendments will,we believe, have a substantive impact on the County or other
taxing agencies.
1
! We look forward to working with the County on these amendments,and we would appreciate a
response from your office,as soon as practical,and certainly before we begin the amendment
process later this spring.
i
i
Sincerely,
L.. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
i
Steven B. Falk MAR 3 0 2007
Executive Director
OFFICE of
Lafayette Redevelopment Agency COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
I
\ --.----.-.-------..---.--------.-._-.----•._.._---.-.----......_-----.----.---.--.--.-- 3675 MT.DIABLO BLVD.,SUITE 210,LAFAYETTE,CA 94549
TELEPHONE:(925)284-1968 FAX:(925)284-3169
http//:www.ci.lafayette.ca.us