NOTICE AND AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Transcription

1 C CITY OF SHASTA LAKE NOTICE AND AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special meeting has been called by the Mayor of the City of Shasta Lake under the authority vested in him by Section of the Government Code of the State of California. The meeting is to take place Monday, January 9, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. at the City Hall Annex, 1650 Stanton Drive, Shasta Lake, California. Business to be transacted at said meeting, and the only business to be transacted is as follows: 1.0 Call to Order 2.0 Council/Staff Comments 3.0 Public Comment Period (Please limit your comments to three minutes). 4.0 Business items: 4.1 Discussion and possible action on Resolution electing to have the City of Shasta Lake serve as the successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency. (CC/RDA) 4.2 Discussion and possible action on Resolution approving a professional services agreement with Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. for services in dissolving the Redevelopment Agency. (CC/RDA) 4.3 Discussion and possible action to approve a transfer of budgeted funds in the amount of $1,200 from the City Manager s travel/training budget to the City Council travel/training budget for Councilmember Lindsay s use. (CC) 5.0 Adjournment This notice was posted in the following designated places: John Beaudet Community Center, City Hall, Shasta Lake Post Office, Project City Post Office, Summit City Post Office Customer Service Personnel Date This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

2 4.1 AGENDA ITEM SHASTA LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: City of Shasta Lake City Council Carol Martin, City Manager DATE: January 9, 2011 SUBJECT: Consideration of Whether the City Wishes to Serve As Successor Agency to the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section FILE: SUMMARY: Adopt a Resolution electing to have the City of Shasta Lake serve as the Successor Agency to the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1). BACKGROUND: On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 26x1, which dissolves all of the redevelopment agencies in California, and struck down AB 27x1, which allowed redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if the opted in to the Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program ( VARP ). The City had opted into the VARP by adopting Ordinance No Because the Agency was going to remain in existence, the City was not required to decide whether it wished to be the Successor Agency to the Agency. Now that the VARP program has been stricken by the Court, the City has the option of deciding whether or not it wishes to serve as the Successor Agency to the Agency. In general, all of the assets, properties, contracts, leases, and records of the Agency are to be transferred to the Successor Agency. Subject to monitoring by, and in some cases the approval of, an Oversight Board, the Successor Agency is responsible for the winding up of the Agency s obligations and affairs. City staff and the City Attorney recommend that the City undertake this obligation. In carrying out this obligation, ABx1 26 limits the liability of the Successor Agency to: the extent of the total sum of property tax revenues it receives pursuant to this part [Part 1.85] and the value of the assets transferred to it as the successor agency for a dissolved redevelopment agency. If the City elects not to serve as the Successor Agency, the first taxing agency that submits a resolution electing to be the Successor Agency for the redevelopment agency would be

3 permitted to serve in that role. Given the level of discretion that the Successor Agency will have over how to handle the Agency s dissolution, the City of Shasta Lake is best served by serving as the Successor Agency. Technically, Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1) states that the City would become the successor agency unless it elects not to serve in that function. However, just for clarity, the City Attorney recommends that the City Council take an affirmative action to elect to serve in that role. In footnote 25 of the Supreme Court s decision, the Court indicated that it was extending the deadline for making the election only to January 13, 2012; thus, consideration and action on this item is required at the soonest opportunity. FUTURE ACTIONS REGARDING HOUSING DUTIES: Pursuant to AB X1 26, new California Redevelopment Law ( CRL ) Section 34176, the City also may elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the redevelopment agency. If the City elects to retain the responsibility, then all rights, powers, duties, and obligations, [but] excluding any amounts on deposit in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, shall be transferred to the [C]ity. If the City does not elect to retain the responsibility for performing housing functions then all such rights, powers, assets, liabilities, duties, and obligations associated with the housing activities of the former agency, again excluding the existing balances in the Housing Fund, must be transferred to: (1) the local housing authority, or (2) if there is more than one local housing authority in jurisdiction, then to the housing authority selected by the City, or (3) if there is no local housing authority then to State Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD ). The City of Shasta Lake already has a Housing Authority vested with the powers and duties permitted under the California Housing Authorities Law, Health & Safety Code Section 34200, et seq, and would be the preferred choice over another local Housing Authority or HCD. At this time the City Attorney, City Staff, and special Counsel are carefully considering the aforementioned alternatives. The City Council must assume the housing duties on behalf of the City or decline the housing duties and defer to the Housing Authority before February 1, City Staff expects to bring this issue before the City Council prior to that deadline. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: As the Successor Agency to the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency, the City would incur certain administrative costs and the City is authorized to receive monies set forth on an approved administrative costs budget. ABx1 26 provides that a Successor Agency is entitled to get up to 5% of the Tax Increment and 3% of the Tax Increment allocated to the Successor Agency for each year after that, but not less than $250,000 per year, for administrative costs. Specifically, Section 34171(b) states: Administrative cost allowance" means an amount that, subject to the approval of the oversight board, is payable from property tax revenues of up to 5 percent of the property tax allocated to the successor agency for the fiscal year and up to 3 percent of the property tax allocated to the Redevelopment Obligation Retirement Fund money that is allocated to the successor agency for each fiscal year thereafter; provided, however, that the amount shall not be less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for any fiscal year or such lesser amount as agreed to by the successor agency. However,

4 the allowance amount shall exclude any administrative costs that can be paid from bond proceeds or from sources other than property tax." FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution electing to have the City of Shasta Lake serve as the Successor Agency to the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1). 2. Do not adopt a Resolution electing to have the City of Shasta Lake serve as the Successor Agency to the Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1), thereby allowing any affected taxing agency the opportunity to function as the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency, including receiving the administrative cost funding from the County Auditor-Controller to perform these functions. 3. Provide staff with alternative direction.

5 RESOLUTION CC 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE CALIFORNIA ELECTING TO HAVE THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE SERVE AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Shasta Lake ( Agency ) is a public body, corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code et seq. ( CRL ); and WHEREAS, on December 29, 2011, in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, Case No. S194861, the California Supreme Court upheld AB 26x1, which dissolves all of the redevelopment agencies in California, and struck down AB 27x1, which allowed redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if the opted in to the Voluntary Alternative Redevelopment Program ( VARP ).; and WHEREAS, the City had opted into the VARP by adopting Ordinance CC on August 16, 2011; and WHEREAS, because the Agency was going to remain in existence, the City was not required to decide whether it wished to be the Successor Agency to the Agency; and WHEREAS, now that the VARP program has been stricken by the Court, the City has the option of deciding whether or not it wishes to serve as the Successor Agency to the Agency; and WHEREAS, in footnote 25 of the Supreme Court s decision, the Court extended the deadline for making the election only to January 13, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Shasta Lake for the City to serve as the Successor Agency; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1), the City would automatically become the Successor Agency unless it affirmatively elects not to serve as the Successor Agency by Resolution, but the City wishes to express its intention to serve as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Shasta Lake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are adopted as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby affirmatively elects pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 34173(d)(1) to serve as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Shasta Lake.

6 SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take such other and further actions, and sign such other and further documents, as is necessary and proper in order to implement this Resolution on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Shasta Lake City Council held on this 9th day of January 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RON DIXON, Mayor City of Shasta Lake, California ATTEST: TONI COATES, City Clerk City of Shasta Lake, California (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOHN KENNEY, City Attorney City of Shasta Lake, California

7 Report Reviewed and Approved 4.2 City Manager AGENDA ITEM City Council Meeting TO: FROM: Carol Martin, City Manager John Duckett, Assistant City Manager DATE: January 6, 2012 SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement RSG consulting services SUMMARY: Staff requests council consideration in executing a professional service agreement not to exceed $25,000 with Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc. (RSG). The primary services provided are to provide staff financial and management consulting services. BACKGROUND: California's high court recently cleared a path for the total elimination of redevelopment agencies. Therefore, there is an immediate need for the City of Shasta Lake to address this matter. RSG will provide technical, management, and administrative services to enable staff to respond to ongoing reporting requirements, transition of the redevelopment agency to a successor agency, financial and strategic planning and other services as needed by staff. FISCAL IMPACTS: The fiscal impact will be a professional services agreement not to exceed $25,000. Funds are available in the current consulting budget. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Professional Services Agreement DISTRIBUTION: City Council

8 RESOLUTION CC 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHASTA LAKE SELECTING ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP INC. (RSG) TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000. WHEREAS, California's high court recently cleared a path for the total elimination of redevelopment agencies; and WHEREAS, there is an immediate need for the City of Shasta Lake to address the changes to the Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, RSG will provide technical, management, and administrative services to enable staff to respond to ongoing reporting requirements, transition of the redevelopment agency to a successor agency, financial and strategic planning and other services as needed by staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Shasta Lake hereby selects Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc. (RSG) to provide consulting services and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with RSG in an amount not to exceed $25,000. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9 th day of January, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RON DIXON, Mayor ATTEST: TONI M. COATES, City Clerk

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Report Reviewed and Approved 4.3 City Manager AGENDA ITEM City Council Meeting TO: FROM: City Council Carol Martin, City Manager DATE: January 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Transfer of Funds SUMMARY Councilmember Lindsay wishes to attend the League of California Cities 2012 New Mayor s and Councilmembers Academy in January BACKGROUND Each Councilmember is provided with $2,000 in budgeted travel/training funds each fiscal year. Councilmember Lindsay has exhausted his funds and is in need of additional funding to allow for his attendance at the 2012 New Mayor s and Councilmember s Academy. The City Manager will not be attending the conference, and therefore, there are funds available in the City Manager s travel/training account that can be transferred to the Councilmember s travel/training account for Councilmember Lindsay s use, with the approval of City Council. Staff seeks Council approval to transfer funds. FISCAL IMPACTS: No supplemental appropriation is necessary. Funds are currently budgeted. ATTACHMENTS: None. Council consensus is all that is necessary. DISTRIBUTION: City Council