AB 2549, as amended, 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 Milpitasbegin insert, on or before April 1, 2015,end insert to organize an independent localbegin delete agencyend deletebegin insert
commission, composed of the city manager, as an ex officio member, and 7 specified members appointed by the Milpitas City Council,end insert 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 repeal these provisions on January 1, 2017.
end insertThis 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.begin delete $220 twoend delete
14begin insert Twoend insert hundred twenty million dollars worth of road, water, and
15sewer improvements located within the redevelopment project
16area, which had been approved in the capital improvement plan
17of the city, cannot be constructed. Other projects, including
18infrastructure projects have been delayed due to significant funding
19shortfalls in the city’s general fund to maintain streets. With the
20elimination of redevelopment, the city’s annual shortfall to
21maintain its Metropolitan
Transit Commission-mandated Pavement
22Condition Index 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.
P3 1(g) The city desires tobegin delete settle its litigation with the state and the begin insert ensure the greatest amount of citizen participation to
2county,end delete
3increase economic activity in the McCarthy Ranch area of the city
4near the Newby Island landfill in order toend insert find new revenue sources
5to replace the funds, restore losses of firefighters and police
6officers, maintain and upgrade critical infrastructure, and generate
7employment and economic activity through previously approved
8private investment.
Section 53083.2 is added to the Government Code, to
10read:
begin deleteThe end deletebegin insert(a)end insertbegin insert end insertbegin insertOn or before April 1, 2015, the end insertCity of
12Milpitas may organize an independent localbegin delete agencyend deletebegin insert commissionend insert
13 to investigate and study the consequences of the dissolution of
14redevelopment on employment, revenues, and economic activity
15in order to identify and recommend ways to raise revenues to
16increase city staff to adequate levels, to invest in infrastructure
17and development projects, and tobegin delete settle claims against the city by begin insert
increase economic activity
18the state and the County of Santa Clara.end delete
19in the McCarthy Ranch area of the City of Milpitas near the Newby
20Island landfill.end insert
21(b) The commission shall be composed of seven people
22appointed by the Milpitas City Council, as follows:
23(1) One member of the business community who is also a
24member of the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce.
25(2) One employee of the City of Milpitas Fire Department.
end insertbegin insert26(3) One employee of the City of Milpitas Police Department.
end insertbegin insert
27(4) One member of a local union
that is unaffiliated with public
28employee unions representing workers for the City of Milpitas.
29(5) One owner of real property within the McCarthy Ranch area
30of the City of Milpitas near the Newby Island landfill.
31(6) Two residents of the City of Milpitas.
end insertbegin insert
32(c) The city manager of the City of Milpitas shall be an ex officio
33member of the commission and report on the commission’s
34activities to the Milpitas City Council.
35(d) The commission shall elect its own chairperson.
end insertbegin insert
36(e) Within one year of the City of Milpitas forming the
37commission, the commission’s authority shall cease.
38(f) This section shall remain in
effect only until January 1, 2017,
39and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
40is enacted before January 1, 2017, deletes or extends that date.
The Legislature finds and declares that a special law
2is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
3within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
4Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the City of
5Milpitas, where parcels on the west side of Interstate 880 and to
6the east of Coyote Creek in the McCarthy Ranch area of Milpitas
7near the Newby Island landfill, the San Francisco Bay area, and
8the regional water pollution control plant face particular challenges
9to economic development as a result of their restrictive location.
O
98