AB 2549, as introduced, Ridley-Thomas. Redevelopment: City of Milpitas.
Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies, as defined. Existing law requires successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations, as defined, perform obligations required pursuant to any enforceable obligation, dispose of all the assets of the former redevelopment agency, and remit unencumbered balances of redevelopment agency funds, including housing funds, to the county auditor-controller.
This bill would authorize the City of Milpitas to organize an independent local agency to investigate and study the consequences of the dissolution of redevelopment on employment, revenues, and economic activity in order to identify and recommend ways to raise revenues for specified purposes.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Milpitas.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2following:
3(a) The dissolution of redevelopment by the state has been
4devastating in the City of Milpitas (city) and to its citizens.
5(b) As a result of the dissolution of redevelopment, the city has
6lost $39 million in annual local tax revenues.
7(c) The dissolution of redevelopment has degraded public safety
8in the city as the city has cut employment. Since the 2011-12 fiscal
9year, the city has laid off 110 employees, including 12 firefighters,
10and has been unable to fill 147 other positions that would otherwise
11had been filled, including 13 police officer
positions.
12(d) The dissolution of redevelopment has stopped investment
13in previously approved critical infrastructure in the city. $220 two
14hundred twenty million dollars worth of road, water, and sewer
15improvements located within the redevelopment project area, which
16had been approved in the capital improvement plan of the city,
17cannot be constructed. Other projects, including infrastructure
18projects have been delayed due to significant funding shortfalls in
19the city’s general fund to maintain streets. With the elimination of
20redevelopment, the city’s annual shortfall to maintain its
21Metropolitan Transit Commission-mandated Pavement Condition
22Index goal of 70 is $4 million per year.
23(e) The dissolution of redevelopment has stopped previously
24approved development projects in the city, including a 120-room
25hotel and a low- and moderate-income senior housing project.
26With respect to
the latter project, the project developer had agreed
27to employ 100 full-time medical and caregiver positions. Both
28projects had completed permits and land use reviews, including
29reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act.
30(f) The dissolution of redevelopment has spurred litigation
31between the city, which was the second largest redevelopment
32agency within the County of Santa Clara, as the state and county
33have sued the city for $55 million.
34(g) The city desires to settle its litigation with the state and the
35county, find new revenue sources to replace the funds, restore
36losses of firefighters and police officers, maintain and upgrade
37critical infrastructure, and generate employment and economic
38activity through previously approved private investment.
Section 53083.2 is added to the Government Code, to
2read:
The City of Milpitas may organize an independent
4local agency to investigate and study the consequences of the
5dissolution of redevelopment on employment, revenues, and
6economic activity in order to identify and recommend ways to
7raise revenues to increase city staff to adequate levels, to invest in
8infrastructure and development projects, and to settle claims against
9the city by the state and the County of Santa Clara.
The Legislature finds and declares that a special law
11is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
12within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
13Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the City of
14Milpitas, where parcels on the west side of Interstate 880 and to
15the east of Coyote Creek in the McCarthy Ranch area of Milpitas
16near the Newby Island landfill, the San Francisco Bay area, and
17the regional water pollution control plant face particular challenges
18to economic development as a result of their restrictive location.
O
99